[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15048-15068]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1246, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1246) to respond to the continuing economic 
     crisis adversely affecting American agricultural producers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1190

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment not be read in 
full.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment 
by number.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1190.

  The amendment is as follows:

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

       Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, use $4,622,240,000 of funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a market loss 
     assistance payment to owners and producers on a farm that are 
     eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 2001 under a 
     production flexibility contract for the farm under the 
     Agriculture Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
       (b) Amount.--The amount of assistance made available to 
     owners and producers on a farm under this section shall be 
     proportionate to the amount of the total contract payments 
     received by the owners and producers for fiscal year 2001 
     under a production flexibility contract for the farm under 
     the Agricultural Market Transition Act.

     SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL OILSEEDS PAYMENT.

       The Secretary shall use $423,510,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to make a supplemental payment 
     under section 202 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to producers of 
     the 2000 crop of oilseeds that previously received a payment 
     under such section.

     SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL PEANUT PAYMENT.

       The Secretary shall use $54,210,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental 
     payment under section

[[Page 15049]]

     204(a) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to producers of 
     quota peanuts or additional peanuts for the 2000 crop year 
     that previously received a payment under such section. The 
     Secretary shall adjust the payment rate specified in such 
     section to reflect the amount made available for payment 
     under this section.

     SEC. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL TOBACCO PAYMENT.

       (a) Supplemental Payment.--The Secretary shall use 
     $129,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     provide a supplemental payment under section 204(b) of the 
     Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 
     7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to eligible persons (as defined in such 
     section) that previously received a payment under such 
     section.
       (b) Special Rule for Georgia.--The Secretary may make 
     payments under this section to eligible persons in Georgia 
     only if the State of Georgia agrees to use the sum of 
     $13,000,000 to make payments at the same time, or 
     subsequently, to the same persons in the same manner as 
     provided for the Federal payments under this section, as 
     required by section 204(b)(6) of the Agricultural Risk 
     Protection Act of 2000.

     SEC. 5. SUPPLEMENTAL WOOL AND MOHAIR PAYMENT.

       The Secretary shall use $16,940,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental 
     payment under section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 
     106-387), to producers of wool, and producers of mohair, for 
     the 2000 marketing year that previously received a payment 
     under such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment 
     rate specified in such section to reflect the amount made 
     available for payments under this section.

     SEC. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL COTTONSEED ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary shall use $84,700,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to provide supplemental 
     assistance under section 204(e) of the Agricultural Risk 
     Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 
     note) to producers and first-handlers of the 2000 crop of 
     cottonseed that previously received assistance under such 
     section.

     SEC. 7. SPECIALTY CROPS.

       (A) Base State Grants.--The Secretary shall use $26,000,000 
     of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants 
     to the several States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to 
     be used to support activities that promote agriculture. The 
     amount of the grant shall be--
       (1) $500,000 to each of the several States; and
       (2) $1,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (b) Grants for Value of Production.-- The Secretary shall 
     use $133,400,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to make a grant to each of the several States in an amount 
     that represents the proportion of the value of specialty crop 
     production in the State in relation to the national value of 
     specialty crop production, as follows:
       (1) California, $63,320,000.
       (2) Florida, $16,860,000.
       (3) Washington, $9,610,000.
       (4) Idaho, $43,670,000.
       (5) Arizona, $3,430,000
       (6) Michigan, $3,250,000.
       (7) Oregon, $3,220,000.
       (8) Georgia, $2,730,000.
       (9) Texas, $2,660,000.
       (10) New York, $2,660,000.
       (11) Wisconsin, $2,570,000.
       (12) North Carolina, $1,540,000.
       (13) Colorado, $41,510,000.
       (14) North Dakota, $1,380,000.
       (15) Minnesota, $1,320,000.
       (16) Hawaii, $1,150,000.
       (17) New Jersey, $1,100,000.
       (18) Pennsylvania, $980,000.
       (19) New Mexico, $900,000.
       (20) Maine, $880,000.
       (21) Ohio, $800,000.
       (22) Indiana, $660,000.
       (23) Nebraska, $640,000.
       (24) Massachusetts, $640,000.
       (25) Virginia, $620,000.
       (26) Maryland, $500,000.
       (27) Louisiana, $460,000.
       (28) South Carolina, $440,000.
       (29) Tennessee, $400,000.
       (30) Illinois, $400,000.
       (31) Oklahoma, $390,000.
       (32) Alabama, $300,000.
       (33) Delaware, $290,000.
       (34) Mississippi, $250,000.
       (35) Kansas, $210,000.
       (36) Arkansas, $210,000.
       (37) Missouri, $210,000.
       (38) Connecticut, $180,000.
       (39) Utah, $140,000.
       (40) Montana, $140,000.
       (41) New Hampshire, $120,000.
       (42) Nevada, $120,000.
       (43) Vermont, $120,000.
       (44) Iowa, $100,000.
       (45) West Virginia, $90,000.
       (46) Wyoming, $70,000.
       (47) Kentucky, $60,000.
       (48) South Dakota, $40,000.
       (49) Rhode Island, $40,000.
       (50) Alaska, $20,000.
       (c) Specialty Crop Priority.--As a condition on the receipt 
     of a grant under this section, a State shall agree to give 
     priority to the support of specialty crops in the use of the 
     grant funds.
       (d) Specialty Crop Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``specialty crop'' means any agricultural crop, except wheat, 
     feed grains, oil-seeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, and tobacco.

     SEC. 8. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to make a grant to each of the 
     several States to be used by the States to cover direct and 
     indirect costs related to the processing, transportation, and 
     distribution of commodities to eligible recipient agencies. 
     The grants shall be allocated to States in the manner 
     provided under section 204(a) of the Emergency Food 
     Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508(a)).

     SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR 
                   COTTON PRODUCERS.

       (a) Conditions on Payment to State.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1121 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (as contained in section 101(a) of division A of Public 
     Law 105-277 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note), and as amended by section 
     754 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (as enacted by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-42), is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Conditions on Payment to State.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall make the payment to the State of Georgia 
     under subsection (a) only if the State--
       ``(1) contributes $5,000,000 to the indemnity fund and 
     agrees to expend all amounts in the indemnity fund by not 
     later than January 1, 2001 (or as soon as administratively 
     practical thereafter), to provide compensation to cotton 
     producers as provided in such subsection;
       ``(2) requires the recipient of a payment from the 
     indemnity fund to repay the State, for deposit in the 
     indemnity fund, the amount of any duplicate payment the 
     recipient otherwise recovers for such loss of cotton, or the 
     loss of proceeds from the sale of cotton, up to the amount of 
     the payment from the indemnity fund; and
       ``(3) agrees to deposit in the indemnity fund the proceeds 
     of any bond collected by the State for the benefit of 
     recipients of payments from the indemnity fund, to the extent 
     of such payments.''.
       (b) Additional Disbursements From the Indemnity Fund.--
     Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Additional Disbursement to Cotton Ginners.--The State 
     of Georgia shall use funds remaining in the indemnity fund, 
     after the provision of compensation to cotton producers in 
     Georgia under subsection (a) (including cotton producers who 
     file a contingent claim, as defined and provided in section 
     5.1 of chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of 
     Georgia), to compensate cotton ginners (as defined and 
     provided in such section) that--
       ``(1) incurred a loss as the result of--
       ``(A) the business failure of any cotton buyer doing 
     business in Georgia; or
       ``(B) the failure or refusal of any such cotton buyer to 
     pay the contracted price that had been agreed upon by the 
     ginner and the buyer for cotton grown in Georgia on or after 
     January 1, 1997, and had been purchased or contracted by the 
     ginner from cotton producers in Georgia;
       ``(2) paid cotton producers the amount which the cotton 
     ginner had agreed to pay for such cotton received from such 
     cotton producers in Georgia; and
       ``(3) satisfy the procedural requirements and deadlines 
     specified in chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of 
     Georgia applicable to cotton ginner claims.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``Upon the establishment of the 
     indemnity fund, and not later than October 1, 1999, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''.

     SEC. 10. INCREASE IN PAYMENT LIMITATIONS REGARDING LOAN 
                   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND MARKETING LOAN GAINS.

       Notwithstanding section 1001(2) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(1)), the total amount of the payments 
     specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that a person shall 
     be entitled to receive for one or more contract commodities 
     and oilseeds under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) during the 2001 crop year may not exceed 
     $150,000.

     SEC. 11. TIMING OF, AND LIMITATION ON, EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Deadline for Expenditures.--All expenditures required 
     by this Act shall be made not later than September 30, 2001. 
     Any funds made available by this Act and remaining unexpended 
     by October 1, 2001, shall be deemed to be unexpendable, and 
     the authority provided by this Act to expend such funds is 
     rescinded effective on that date.
       (b) Total Amount of Expenditures.--The total amount 
     expended under this Act may not exceed $5,500,000,000. If the 
     payments required by this Act would result in expenditures in 
     excess of such amount, the Secretary shall reduce such 
     payments on a pro rata basis as necessary to ensure that such 
     expenditures do not exceed such amount.

     SEC. 12. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Promulgation.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act,

[[Page 15050]]

     the Secretary and the Commodity Credit Corporation, as 
     appropriate, shall promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to implement this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act. The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this Act shall be made without regard to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (b) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the agreement arrived at by 
the distinguished majority leader and the Republican leader for the 
beginning of this debate on the supplemental farm emergency amendment.
  I cannot emphasize, as the Chair knows as a member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, the importance of this moment for agricultural 
America, for those who have hopes that we will be successful in this 
endeavor. I simply pay tribute to our leadership on both sides of the 
aisle for attempting to frame the debate in this way: by beginning with 
giving me this opportunity to offer an amendment.
  Let me be clear that the bill before the Senate now came by majority 
vote from the Senate Agriculture Committee. For Members who have 
followed the debate yesterday--and for those who have not--we had a 
full debate in the committee during which I offered a substitute 
amendment to that offered by our distinguished chairman, the Senator 
from Iowa. Essentially, my amendment called for the expenditure of $5.5 
billion. It was apportioned through a number of items, about $5 
billion-plus of that through the so-called AMTA payments, these 
payments that have been made to farmers who, as part of the farm 
program, have had program crops in the last several years.
  It has been the responsibility of the Senate and the House--our 
Government--to make additional AMTA payments in recent years in 
addition to those provided by the farm bill in 1996. The reason we have 
chosen the AMTA framework is that the farmers to be paid are known, 
their names and the addresses of these farms. They have been a part of 
the program. As a result, their crop histories are expeditious.
  Members of the committee from time to time have raised questions as 
to: Why these farmers? Why should people who are in corn, wheat, 
cotton, and rice be the recipients? There is no equitable answer to 
that. Most of these debates have occurred in an emergency context such 
as the one we now have.
  This is July 31. By definition of the fiscal year, the payments have 
to be cut and received by September 30. So as a result, for programs 
that do not have an AMTA history and which are not clear about the 
criteria or the recipients, those checks cannot physically get there by 
the 30th.
  We found last year, in making a larger list of recipients, that a 
large list of new program procedures had to be formulated by the 
Department of Agriculture. That happened, and in due course the checks 
were cut, but frequently it was a hiatus of 6, 7, 8, 9 months. That is 
a part of the issue today. We are talking about the fiscal year we are 
in that ends September 30 and how money might be received by farmers.
  Farmers listening to the debate are very interested in this. The 
testimony we have heard is that they are counting in many cases upon 
these payments. More to the point, many of our country bankers are 
counting on these payments, counting on meeting with farmers to settle 
planting loans from this season's planting and the hope; therefore, 
that there might be loans for planting next year in the case of farms 
that are in that situation, literally, needing loans from year to year 
to continue on in business. That is why there is an emergency aspect 
involved.
  I have sought recognition this morning at the early part of the 
debate because I sense that we may be successful, and I have some 
premonition of disaster if we are not, as I read in the press, in the 
newsletters, in all of the communications that come to us about all the 
ways in which this particular debate might go. I will not try to be a 
prophet. My own optimistic spirit is that the debate will go in a 
constructive way, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
  I will not offer the amendment this morning, though I offered it in 
committee. It did have a limit of $5.5 billion. I thought it was 
reasonably well constructed as a compromise of various interests within 
the committee.
  Instead, the amendment I have sent to the desk--and I ask for its 
immediate consideration--is the identical language of legislation that 
came from the House of Representatives. It is a bill already adopted by 
our friends in the House Agriculture Committee and the House of 
Representatives as a whole. It is passed. At some point, probably very 
quickly, we will have to come to grips--this week, for example--with 
what we will do if we pass legislation different from that which the 
House has passed.
  The conventional wisdom is, of course, we would have a conference 
between Members of the House and Senate. We would try to reconcile our 
differences. We would report back to the two bodies at some time during 
this week. Presumably because of the emergency, priority would be given 
to this conference report. Hopefully, both Houses would pass what we do 
and send it to the President.
  The President has left no doubt what he will do if in fact this comes 
to him in some form with a pricetag higher than $5.5 billion, all to be 
spent in this fiscal year. We had, first of all, at the time of our 
committee debates, a letter from Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget. Mr. Daniels said he would not recommend that 
the President sign a bill of more than $5.5 billion in this fiscal 
year.
  That was fairly mild in comparison to the letter read on the floor by 
the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania yesterday, which was 
received by many Members and which, after a lot of conversation, 
including the President of the United States, rather vividly in much of 
it--the letter came to us and said the senior advisers of the President 
would advise him to veto the bill if it has more than $5.5 billion and 
extends beyond this year. They gave reasons for that, and these are 
debatable, and I am sure we will hear debate about them.
  Madam President, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be in 
the minds of other Senators or of the farmers in this country or of 
anybody listening to this debate, what is going to occur in the event 
we finally come to a conference and we have a result other than 
something less or $5.5 billion.
  That being the case, I have suggested to the Senate, and in fact 
taken the action of offering it as an amendment, that if we are serious 
about coming to a conclusion on this farm bill, we had best at this 
point adopt the House language. This is not my language. It is not 
pride of authorship. It is not my way or no way. I have already had a 
try at it and lost 12-9 in the Ag Committee on what I thought was a 
pretty good suggestion. That is another day.
  We are now in Tuesday of presumably our final week. The distinguished 
majority leader has said we are going to stay at this, not just this 
week and this weekend but until we pass a bill. I have no doubt we will 
pass a bill. The point I am making is, it had better be one the 
President will sign or at the end of the trail we will not have 
legislation. We will have an issue. Members may say: The President was 
wrong; he should not have done that. The President and his supporters 
will affirm that he was absolutely right.
  The net effect, however, for farmers listening to all of that, as we 
sort out the relative praise and blame, will be that they have no 
money. That I start the debate with and will probably repeat several 
times because it is a very critical element.
  If the House bill which I have offered today as an amendment did not 
have a

[[Page 15051]]

lot of merit, I would not have taken the step this morning to suggest 
to my colleagues they adopt something that was without the merit at 
least that I believe it has.
  I want to offer, as introduction to the discussion of this House bill 
and my amendment, a letter that was received yesterday by Trent Lott, 
our Republican leader. It was written by three distinguished Members of 
the House of Representatives; namely, Charlie Stenholm, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee from Texas; 
John Boehner from Ohio; and Cal Dooley from California. They 
essentially were authors and major advocates in the House of the 
legislation that finally emerged. They say:

       It is our understanding the Senate will begin floor 
     consideration this week on the Fiscal Year 2001 Agricultural 
     Supplemental Assistance bill. We are writing to urge the 
     Senate to stay within $5.5 billion provided for FY2001 in the 
     budget and to approve this measure immediately in order to 
     provide the assistance prior to September 30, 2001 as 
     required by the 2002 Budget Agreement.
       As you know, the House reported a bill that will spend $5.5 
     billion to assist our farmers and ranchers this fiscal year. 
     After much debate in the House Agriculture Committee, we 
     determined that spending more than $5.5 billion would limit 
     our flexibility as we write the 2002 Farm Bill. We believe 
     that if we spend more than the money allowed for fiscal year 
     2001, we will be borrowing against American agriculture's 
     best chance for a comprehensive safety net.
       Last week the House Agriculture Committee approved a 
     landmark farm bill that will provide a safety net for our 
     farmers, fund conservation at an unprecedented levels and 
     renew our commitment to needy families. Passage of 
     agricultural assistance legislation beyond $5.5 billion will 
     imperil these critical needs.
       We urge you to remain within the $5.5 billion so that we 
     can provide long-term solutions for America's farmers and 
     ranchers. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this 
     request.

  It is signed by the three distinguished Members.
  We likewise, Madam President, heard from a good number of our 
colleagues on the floor yesterday that they appreciate the point of the 
House. They disagree with it--and Members will disagree with a number 
of our approaches--in part because all are compromises between 
interests that have a lot of merit.
  For example, in the amendment I offered in committee, the AMTA 
payment was somewhat over $5 billion. In the amendment we are looking 
at today, the House legislation, the AMTA payment is somewhat better 
than $4.6 billion--about $400 million less. Legislation offered by the 
distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator Harkin, offers about 
$400 million more in the end.
  If we take an example, for the corn farmer--and I admitted yesterday 
I am one--this is bad news. Moving from, say, $5.4 billion, or some 
such figure in the AMTA payment, even to $5 billion is difficult, and 
$4.6 billion is very difficult; likewise, wheat farmers, cotton 
farmers, rice farmers. What goes on here? In the old days, the only 
crops we were talking about were the program crops as I outlined 
yesterday that started in the 1930s. That is the way it has been all 
these years.
  Now suddenly, in a $5.5 billion bill only $4.6-plus billion is 
devoted to us. After all, we farm the majority of the acreage and, in 
terms of crops, the majority of the value.
  Livestock producers would say: Welcome. We were never in on the deal 
to begin with. Program crops meant crops. They did not mean hogs and 
cattle and sheep. In fact, we will take a look at this situation. We 
are already in some anxiety as, say, cattlemen and people who produce 
pork, as we heard in our committee last week.
  What do these programs do to feed costs? Is there an input problem 
for us already in what agriculture committees have been doing 
cumulatively? We thought there might be, and that would be bad news if 
one were getting no AMTA payment or consideration. In fact, we are 
seeing potential costs increase in the programs to help various people.
  My only point is within American agriculture there are many diverse, 
even competing, views among those who produce livestock, feed 
livestock, and those who produce the feed. If there was one integrated 
operation, perhaps it all works out, but as we have heard, many farmers 
in America do one or another or various things. So they are all going 
to look at this bill and say: What is in this for us?
  The amendment I have offered will be a disappointment in that respect 
because it is a compromise. It suggests that in order to accommodate a 
number of interests, and some say even in the House bill not nearly 
enough, there is some division of what might be coming in a more whole 
form in the AMTA payment.
  I make that point explicitly because on our side of the aisle I have 
heard Senators say they want the bigger AMTA payment. I am not so 
worried about specialty crops or about poultry or livestock. As a 
matter of fact, I am worried about cotton farmers, rice farmers, wheat 
farmers, and corn farmers. I understand that. As a matter of fact, this 
is a part of the business of legislation, trying to find and meld these 
competing interests.
  In any event, we have that predicament at the outset, which I admit. 
As I said at the beginning, I offered the amendment because I see this 
potentially as a way in which we will have a bill. I fear if we do not 
have a solution along those lines we will not have a bill.
  Let me go explicitly into the amendment that has been offered this 
morning. As was suggested by our distinguished Members of the House, 
whose letter I read, led by Congressmen Stenholm, Boehner, and Dooley, 
on June 26, the House passed H.R. 2213, which provided for $5.5 billion 
in broad-based market loss assistance to the Nation's farmers and 
ranchers. The assistance must be provided to farmers by September 30 of 
this year, the last day of fiscal year 2001.
  This market loss assistance is above and beyond $21.7 billion in 
payments in fiscal year 2001 that the Congressional Budget Office now 
estimates is already being provided to farmers in this fiscal year 
under current law commodities support and crop insurance programs. 
Excluding the new farm assistance we are now considering, the 
Agriculture Department projects United States net cash farm income for 
2001 at $52.3 billion, down $3 billion from last year's $55.3 billion.
  As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, herein lies the reason at 
least the Budget Committees of the Senate and the House allocated the 
$5.5 billion for this year. They saw a gap. As I recall, they estimated 
the gap then, in January and February, at $3 billion or $4 billion. 
With updated figures, we now see an estimate that there is about a $3 
billion gap between the $52.3 billion in net cash income last year and 
what was expected for this year.
  Farm income last year was supported by nearly $23 billion in direct 
payments to farmers, which at that time was an all-time high. If we 
enact H.R. 2213, the amendment I have offered, in a timely fashion, net 
cash farm income for this year, based on the current USDA projection, 
would rise to $57.8 billion, $2.5 billion above last year's level. We 
will have made up the $3 billion gap and exceeded that by $2.5 billion 
with a $5.5 billion expenditure.
  H.R. 2213 provides for $4.622 billion in supplemental market loss 
payments. These are payments to producers enrolled in the 1996 farm 
bill's Agriculture Market Transition Act, the AMTA acronym. These 
farmers have contracts, and the bill says the payments come to them 
throughout the entirety of the 7 years of the bill. That is the AMTA 
payment, $4.622 billion.
  The second provision is $424 million in market loss payments to 
producers of soybeans and other oilseeds. My first question on this 
provision was: How will the $424 million in these market loss payments 
to the soybean and oilseed producers get to them by September 30? The 
answer to that question, and that will be roughly the same answer but I 
will be explicit all the way through this list, is they are the same 
producers who received the money last year.
  It was not easy to make the payments last year, and this called for 
an enormous amount of research and guidance through the whole process, 
but

[[Page 15052]]

the results of all of that activity are that there is now a list. The 
expedition of the payments will be the $424 million goes to those same 
people and can be paid, if we make a decision to act this week, by 
September 30.
  Next comes $159 million in assistance to producers of specialty crops 
such as fruits and vegetables. Here we do not have lists of who 
received the money last year, and therefore the provision in the House 
bill is there would be grants to the States. Now, the States will have 
to work out who gets the money within their States, but for the 
purposes of this act the money is dispensed by the Federal Government 
to the States before September 30. Therefore, technically, it is out of 
the Treasury before the fiscal year ends and fits within the $5.5 
billion in that way.
  That implies a great deal more activity, understandably, for equity 
for the specialty crops as it goes to the various States and farmers 
work with their State governments.
  Then we have $129 million in market loss assistance for tobacco. This 
goes to quota holders, who are a well-known group, and payments have 
been made to these persons in the past.
  The next provision is $54 million in market loss assistance for 
peanuts. Likewise, there are quota holders for peanuts, a well-known 
list for these producers. The money can be paid to them by September 
30.
  The same is true for the next provision, $85 million in market loss 
assistance for cotton seed; the same for $17 million in market loss 
assistance for wool and mohair producers; the final provision in the 
House bill is $10 million in emergency food assistance support. This 
emergency assistance support will go for commodities for the school 
lunch programs and other important and nutrition programs. Those moneys 
will be spent before September 30. These are the provisions of the 
House legislation. That is the total list of provisions.
  H.R. 2213 utilizes the full $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 provided 
in this year's budget resolution for farm market loss assistance. It 
does not touch the $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002 funds that the 
budget resolution also provides either for supplemental farm assistance 
for the 2002 crops or to help the Agriculture Committee write a new 
multiyear farm bill. That very statement is, of course, the source of 
some debate. There are Members who say: Why not reach into the $7.35 
billion? After all, it is there. The Budget Committee certainly 
mentioned it. Perhaps the Budget Committee, in mentioning it, implied 
that the agricultural crisis goes on next year. As a matter of fact, 
one can suggest the Budget Committee, in talking about over $70 billion 
payments over 10 years, implies the crisis goes on forever, or at least 
for 10 years almost at the same level of crisis, maybe with a a few ups 
and downs, $10 billion payment one year, $5 billion the next, and so 
forth.
  If we adopt this thinking, it makes almost no difference when the 
money is spent because the crisis goes on and people think if you can't 
pick it up in this bill, you might try the Agriculture appropriations 
bill and find an emergency there to provide additional funds.
  Sponsored by Congressmen Stenholm and Boehner, whom I mentioned 
before, the House bill finally represents a bipartisan compromise. It 
was not easy to come by. Stenholm-Boehner-Dooley, and others I have 
cited, had contending parties within the House Agriculture Committee. 
Many people, as I read the debate, asked, What about us? They mentioned 
various considerations: if we were sending money to farmers, they 
wanted their fair share, including the brokering of all of that, with 
payments that could be made physically by the end of this year.
  It was not an easy task. Nevertheless, they mastered it in the House. 
It came out of committee well over a month ago. Their bill passed the 
House of Representatives by voice vote. Perhaps the House Members, by 
the time they listened to all of this debate, figured the Agriculture 
Committee people suffered enough; that they had undergone the agonies 
and did not want a repetition.
  It is remarkable that this body takes a very different view. It 
appears we are going to have an extensive debate that may go on for 
days. The House people were able to do this by voice vote. One reason 
they did so is that they heard from farmers, they heard from their 
constituents, and the farmers said: Get on with it; we don't want an 
argument; we understand you are doing your very best. The House people 
understood most of the Members on the floor of the House were not 
farmers; they were advocates for farmers. They were doing the best for 
their constituents who were farmers, but at some point the constituents 
would say; don't overlawyer me; don't over advocate me; try to get on 
with a result because September 30 is coming quickly. Now, granted, 
such voices will be heard coming from agricultural America to this 
body.
  As I indicated at the outset, and the reason I offer this amendment, 
this amendment offers, I believe, the opportunity to get a result. The 
bill before the Senate today, which I have sought to amend, represents 
a very different approach that came out of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. The approach is that $1.976 billion in fiscal year 2002 
would be spent in addition to the $5.5 billion in the current fiscal 
year. A significant portion, therefore, of the fiscal year 2002 budget 
authority is used to fund this farm bill provision as opposed to the 
emergency that may arise next year or the farm bill which presumably 
will come out of our committee and set some charter philosophy for the 
future. The House already passed such a bill. We may or may not agree 
with it. In any event, they have a pretty full picture now of their 
activities.
  The bill offered by the distinguished chairman of our committee, 
Senator Harkin, for example, provides $200 million for the wetlands 
reserve program, WRP; $250 million for the environmental quality 
incentive programs, EQIP; $40 million for the farmland protection 
program; $7 million for the wildlife habitat incentive program; $43 
million for a variety of agricultural credit and rural development 
programs; and $3 million for agricultural research. The outlays from 
some of these programs would be spread over a number of years, well 
beyond fiscal year 2002.
  I mention these programs because I support these programs. I have 
been a major advocate for agricultural research, not only of the 
formula grants to our great universities but cutting-edge research 
where anyone can compete to try to go out after the most pervasive 
hunger problems on Earth, or go after production problems, genetic 
problems, the whole raft of things that are very important for 
humanity. I think we ought to be about this in a very serious way. The 
EQIP program that I cited is extraordinarily important. It is at least 
a way in which our livestock producers can stay alive while meeting the 
requirements of the EPA or other environmental considerations that 
impinge very markedly on their operations. As we consider the farm bill 
in the Senate as a whole, I would be an advocate of doing a great deal 
more. I have saluted our chairman, Senator Harkin, for his championship 
of conservation programs. Both the chairman and I, as we speak, are 
missing a hearing on conservation programs and we regret that because 
these are people who are in the field, championing things that we 
believe in very strongly.
  There is an argument, which you will hear in due course as the farm 
bill is presented, between those who advocate a lot more for 
conservation and maybe less for crop payments and subsidies of that 
sort and much more for the EQIP program that helps livestock people and 
maybe less for support of certain crops. Those are the tradeoffs, 
again, and the difficulties within the whole agricultural family that 
we finally have to face. But it would be very difficult to argue, in 
the sense that we are attempting to get emergency money to farmers to 
pay the county banker and get the money to them by September 30, that 
these broad-gauged, important programs of research and conservation for 
America belong in this particular emergency supplemental bill.
  Our distinguished Senators will offer: ``They certainly do. And why 
not?''

[[Page 15053]]

And: ``If we believe in them, why not do more of them?'' And: ``Why not 
now?''
  Earlier in the debate I pointed out one reason, as a practical 
matter, is that President Bush has said he will veto the bill if it is 
more than $5.5 billion. One way, perhaps, for the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa to remedy that is to downsize everything in his package to 
about five-sevenths of where he is, get it under $5.5 billion. But 
that, of course, then gets into an argument between the people who want 
more AMTA payments, crop payments, as well as those who want to take 
care of conservation and various other aspects all in this same 
emergency bill which is not a full-scale farm bill by any means.
  As a result, we have that dilemma, and I come down on the side of 
saying we try to do the conservation, the research, the EQIP, and the 
farm bill as opposed to the suggestion in this day's discussion.
  Let me just comment further that, with the program improvements we 
made in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000--that was the very 
important debate on crop insurance--participation in crop insurance has 
risen sharply, as we hoped it would. Without repeating even a portion 
of that important debate, the point of last year's discussion about 
this time was that crop insurance can offer a comprehensive safety net.
  For example, take once again a personal, anecdotal experience with my 
corn and soybean crops. This year I have about 200 acres each on the 
Lugar farm in Marion County in Indiana. We have taken advantage of the 
legislation we talked about last year and we purchased the 85-percent 
revenue protection. Very simply, this means that our agent takes a look 
at the last 5 years of records of production and that gives a pretty 
good baseline of what could be anticipated from those fields and, 
simply, we are guaranteed about 85 percent of revenue based upon the 
average crop prices for those 5 years. At the present time, the average 
for the last 5 years is higher than the current price. It may rise and 
meet that average.
  So, as a corn farmer, for example, I know I am going to get 85 
percent of a higher price than in fact is the market now, at least on 
the average production I have had. So I do not have the problems of the 
bad weather one year, or so forth, affecting that abnormally. The net 
effect of that is, as a corn farmer, before I even planted the crop 
this year, I knew that x number of dollars were at the end of the 
trail--as a matter of fact, a pretty good number of those dollars that 
I could expect in a reasonably good year. That is a safety net that is 
very substantial any way you look at it.
  Many farmers may say: I have never heard of such a program.
  That is a part of our problem, the educational component, trying to 
understand what crop insurance and marketing strategies, and so forth, 
are all about. For instance, once guaranteed this income from that 
cornfield, I could be alert for spikes in the market that come along 
and make forward sales of corn when prices were up. I am not beholden 
to sit there and hope the Lord will provide at the time I ship it in, 
in the fall. So I can enhance that 85 percent a whole lot. So can any 
corn farmer in America who hears these words this morning and adopts 
such a policy.
  But we in the Senate and the House provided that. The President 
signed it last year. One of the problems of it is that it costs 
probably about $3 billion a year. I mention that because that--we are 
not debating that this morning--flows right along. It is a part of the 
base as well as these AMTA payments that are made, regardless of what 
we do, or the loan deficiency payments made at the elevator even as we 
speak.
  So the safety net already is very heavy. But I mention with those 
improvements--and I think they were constructive ones--a part of our 
problem remains information dissemination, education on marketing 
insurance strategies in the hope that farmers will take advantage of 
actions the Congress has already taken.
  In addition, as to what we do today, we will be hearing soon from the 
Agriculture Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. Typically, 
that subcommittee takes a look at miscellaneous disasters of all sorts 
throughout the United States. I cannot remember an Agriculture 
appropriations bill that did not take into consideration weather 
disasters. But sometimes there are other disasters. In other words, it 
provides still an additional safety net for events that seem 
extraordinary and beyond anything we have considered or that could have 
been helped with crop insurance or any of our AMTA payments that flow 
whether or not you even have a crop.
  Overall, the bill of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the 
underlying bill in this debate, provides $6.75 billion in supplemental 
farm assistance for 2001 crops and $750 million in other spending over 
2 fiscal years. It leaves, now, $5.35 billion for the supplemental farm 
assistance of next year and very likely, in my judgment, will create a 
funding shortfall for that farm assistance. Senators can argue maybe no 
assistance will be required so why not try it this year. But that is a 
value judgment.
  The President, the White House, and others, have come to the 
conclusion that this year is this year and we ought to look at next 
year on its merits because any way you look at it, $2 billion borrowed 
from next year theoretically could be spent for anything in America; 
there is no obligation to spend that $2 billion on emergencies. For 
example, without getting into a debate that is deeper than I want to 
get today, by next year people could say: In fact we take very 
seriously the problem of prescription drugs for the elderly under 
Medicare. We take very seriously Social Security reform. How are you 
folks going to pay for that?
  We might say: Well, the $2 billion will never be missed. It was 
simply a part of a debate we had awhile back. But every $1 billion is 
going to be missed when we come to those fundamental issues.
  Agriculture is a part of this general amount of $1 trillion that the 
President discussed in the State of the Union Address. As he outlined 
his assurance to the American people that we have to be thoughtful 
about Medicare, about Social Security, about education, and about 
health generally, he said there is still this contingency of about $1 
trillion from which we make the reforms in Medicare, from which the 
supplementary legislation for prescription drugs for the elderly come, 
Social Security reform, and agriculture.
  There are a number of people in both the House and the Senate 
committees who say we had better get busy because when this general 
debate gets going, if we have not pinned down the agriculture money on 
all four corners for the next 10 years, Katy bar the door. People are 
likely to take a look at priorities.
  I understand that. This $2 billion reaching across the line is not an 
egregious misstep. And clearly one can argue the Budget Committee 
provided this liberal interpretation. But $2 billion is $2 billion, and 
it is an expenditure. The Senate must determine priorities; the House 
has. They have said $5.5 billion, and the President said that is the 
only figure he is going to sign. We may, once again, get into that kind 
of argument in behalf of farmers. We are strong advocates for farmers.
  But farmers, by and large, will say: Pass the bill and cut the checks 
because we have an appointment with the banker. You can have your 
argument when you come back.
  It is a good argument for farmers as well as for other Americans.
  The President's advisers in advising the President to veto this bill 
made a number of statements with regard to the need for it at this 
time. This is an important part of the debate. Members, in fact, 
yesterday got into this in a big way. The most common way of getting 
into this is for a Senator to address the Chair and say, I have been to 
this county seat or that county seat or on my friend's farm. Anybody 
who does not understand the profound suffering and difficulty has just 
not been there and doesn't have eyes to see. All over America people 
are in grave trouble. Each one of us from a farm State, as a matter of 
fact, could cite hundreds of

[[Page 15054]]

instances of farmers who are having severe difficulty. There is no 
doubt about that. I simply state that as a basic premise for the 
debate.
  If there were any doubt about it, we would not be debating $5.5 
billion of emergency payments on top of over $20 billion of support 
that Congress has already voted. That is a lot of money, but I 
understand that a vast majority of Senators are in favor of legislation 
that would be helpful in this respect. We are not talking about a 
situation in which the needs have not been perceived, but at the same 
time in reality sometimes people can overstate this. That is always 
dangerous to do.
  I have found in meetings with farmers around my State that, by and 
large, most people do not want to have a cheerful meeting. There are 
not a lot of good-news apostles coming forward and pointing out how 
well they are doing. In fact, that is totally out of the question.
  I made a mistake at a meeting a while back in pointing out that on my 
farm we had made money for the last 45 years without exception. You 
don't do that, I found out. No one wants to hear that because, as a 
matter of fact, it just isn't true for most people. And they would say 
that for some it has never been true for the 45 years. They lost money 
for all of the 45 years, or at least essentially that is the case. I 
hear that.
  On the other hand, let me say that essentially there has been some 
modest improvement in agricultural America. For example, world markets 
that are extremely important to the growth of the U.S. sector show some 
promise of increase this year. That is amazing on the face of it. The 
reason why our export sales fell out of bed 4 years ago was not because 
we were not competitive in this country. The price of rice and the 
quality were good, but anybody reading about the Asian economies 
understands that they had severe banking difficulties. The IMF even to 
this day has not been able to cure it in some instances. As a result, 
we lost about 40 percent of our exports to the Asian sector in 1 year's 
time. That was a big hit. That really meant that 10 percent of our 
exports overall vanished overnight--not through any misdeed of American 
agriculture but because of the lack of demand and lack of effective 
money to buy it. Much of that has not yet been restored. There is 
always the possibility. We wish that the Indonesian economy would get 
healthier in a hurry. We are grateful for some good news from Thailand 
and South Korea. The Japanese are always big customers but not any 
bigger. This is not an economy that is growing. We all are working with 
our friends there to try to restore some activity.
  In the European case, we have been hit--not on the questions of price 
or income but on biotechnology--with essentially all of our corn being 
exported and very few soybeans. That is a real problem.
  Our export sales fell to $49 billion in 1999 but are forecast to 
increase to $53.5 billion in 2001--an increase of $500 million, as a 
matter of fact, over the forecast by USDA in February--with livestock 
products, cotton, and soybeans accounting for much of the gain over the 
previous year. That is truly good news.
  Export levels in 2001--the year we are in--are still well below the 
record highs of 1996. Primarily in response to these problems that I 
have cited in Asia, and production increases by competing exporters 
that sometimes are becoming much better at the task, nevertheless, 
sales appear to be increasing significantly.
  During the first half of fiscal year 2001, the surplus in U.S. 
agricultural trade grew to $9.4 billion, almost $2 billion more than 
the same period last year. Year-to-date exports are $32.4 billion, $1.8 
billion higher than they were during the same time period of last year, 
primarily due to $1.5 billion in more shipments of high-value products. 
That includes significant gains in livestock and feed, but bulk 
commodities have also contributed modestly to that.
  Although the intermediate term outlook for agriculture is clearly 
uncertain at this point, it is clear that many underlying farm economic 
conditions are stronger this year than last year. Farm cash receipts 
could be a record high for 2001, driven primarily by a nearly 7-percent 
increase in livestock sales while crop sales could increase by as much 
as 1 percent. That scenario depends on $15.7 billion in direct payments 
from the Federal Government.
  Those taking a look at this situation could say that is still not the 
real market. The sales are up because the Federal Government already 
has put up $15.7 billion, and we are about to put up at least $5.5 
billion more. But, nevertheless, it is up rather than down.
  As I pointed out earlier, if we had the $5.5 billion in my amendment, 
we are clearly going to have a net cash income situation that is at 
least $2.5 billion stronger than last year.
  The projected increase in sales for 2001 is projected to more than 
offset the decline in Government payments and will boost gross cash 
income to $234 billion, up slightly with the bulk of the increase from 
livestock. Net cash income is forecast to decline $3 billion, as I 
pointed out earlier. That is why the $5.5 billion in my amendment takes 
care of that, plus $52.3 billion for the year, albeit through the 
health of the American taxpayers generally.
  Therefore, the outlook for 2001 farm income performance includes:
  Livestock sales, up 6.7 percent; Crop sales up 1 percent; gross cash 
income up .1 percent; and net cash income down--before we act--5.4 
percent. And we remedy that with the $5.5 billion we are about to 
adopt, I hope. If you take a look at the balance sheet for agriculture, 
that is somewhat more promising.
  Overall, the agricultural sector was strong throughout the year 2000, 
with part of that strength coming from strong balance sheets. Assets in 
2000--the year previous--increased 3.6 percent and reached $1.12 
trillion. Farm debt increased 4.1 percent to $183.6 billion. But 
farmers' equity increased 1.4 percent to $941.2 billion. For many 
observers that is astonishing. This being a year or 2 or 3 or 4, 
however you count it, of an agricultural crisis, the net worth of 
farmers as a whole has increased every year. It increases this year as 
compared to last year. Total farm debt has still stayed well under 
constraints at a very modest percentage of that overall equity.
  During the mid-1990s, farm debt rose steadily at $5 to $6 billion 
annually. That clearly is not the case as farmers were much more 
prudent during this particular period.
  The value of livestock and poultry, machinery, purchased inputs, and 
financial assets are all expected to increase this year, but the value 
of stored crops could decline modestly as a part of that asset 
situation.
  Farm operators and lenders learned during the crisis of the 1980s 
that ill-advised borrowing cannot substitute for adequate cash flow and 
profits. In addition to gains in farmland values, cautious borrowing 
has kept the sector sound.
  The farm sector equity growth continues. During the 2001 forecast, we 
see a moderate increase in debt, suggesting modest levels of new 
capital investments financed by debt, and a very low incidence of farms 
borrowing their way out of cash flow problems.
  I mention that because of testimony we heard from farmers who need 
the $5.5 billion in our amendment. But at the same time, they are 
paying back their loans. They are not in a crisis situation with the 
country banker. And the country bankers need to make the loans because 
they do have a relatively sound market situation.
  Land prices: Cash rents reinforce economic strength and suggest 
investment is profitable for many farmers. That raises another issue 
because, in fact, with land prices rising each year--and I cited 
yesterday sector by sector all over the country land prices have been 
rising throughout this decade. The young farmer coming into this 
picture, trying to buy land or to rent land, with rents going up every 
year, has raised some questions about our farm policies.
  They have said: You folks in the Senate and the House are busy 
sending payments to farmers. They are capitalizing that in the value of 
the land.

[[Page 15055]]

They are charging more rent. How are young farmers such as ourselves 
ever going to get in the game?
  We say: We will try to give you some low-cost loans. And the 
Presiding Officer, from his background in finance, will immediately 
recognize that these policies have some contradictions. On the one 
hand, we are doing our very best to boost income and the net worth, the 
balance sheets. I pointed, with pride, to the fact that we have some 
strength here. But it is not strength to everybody. The competing 
sectors, once again, are fairly obvious once you get to the fissures in 
our farm policy.
  Nothing we do today will remedy that problem specifically. We are 
talking about an emergency. We are plugging in the net income, but it 
is all a part of this picture of well over $20 billion of Federal 
payments and who gets them, how are they capitalized, how does that 
work out in balance sheets, and for which farmers.
  These are important issues. The chairman of our committee has had to 
try to resolve that within the committee. I salute him. As chairman for 
the 6 previous years, I had that responsibility. It is not easy, as you 
take a look around the table just in the Ag Committee, quite apart from 
the Senate as a whole. Therefore, I have had modest arguments in favor 
of the amendment I offer today. It is clearly not meant with the wisdom 
of Solomon. It is a pragmatic approach to how we might get action on 
the Agriculture bill as opposed to having a monumental argument for 
many hours and perhaps a veto at the end of the trail.
  Let me just simply say that clearly the bill the Senator from Iowa 
has offered is different from the House bill--significantly different--
and no less a group than the White House people have pointed out the 
difference and indicated the action they would take if that difference 
was not resolved.
  So my hope is that essentially Members will gather as much of this 
together as they wish and try to distill at least the picture of 
agriculture in America that I have suggested and come to a conclusion 
that the amendment I have offered in a way--hopefully, with as much 
equity as possible on both sides of the aisle, and for farmers all over 
America--resolves our problem.
  It would be unseemly to try to point out all the other scenarios that 
could happen if my amendment is not adopted. But let me just describe 
very clearly a part of the task ahead of us if we do not adopt the 
House language.
  Whatever we adopt has to have a conference. I have cited that the 
bill the Senate Agriculture Committee passed the other day, maybe 
inadvertently, appears to touch at least three different House 
committees that have jurisdiction over some of this material. Maybe all 
of them will be happily cooperative in these final days, but I am not 
certain that is the case.
  As I take a look at the chairmanships, the ranking members, and the 
general views of some of these committees--and they are not all Ag 
Committee people--they have other views. Maybe the distinguished 
Senator will excise various items and try to get these folks out of the 
picture. That would be helpful.
  I have suggested he might downsize all of his items by five-sevenths 
and get it under $5.5 billion. Maybe that is a pragmatic solution to 
that. As he does so, of course, he will run into the same problem I 
have. He will run into people who want a bigger AMTA payment, and say: 
By golly, I am not going to vote for that bill unless the AMTA payment 
is at least as it was last year and the year before. I can't go home 
and see my cotton farmers and my corn farmers with anything less. 
Whether we have any money or not, I am going to fight to the very last 
hour to get that dollar, if I can.
  Or you run into the so-called specialty crops people. Strawberry 
farmers have said: We have not been in on this business before. Why 
not?
  Apple growers will say: We have a special problem this year. Without 
some payments, it is curtains for us.
  It goes down through the line. So the chairman has to face all these 
people. He has already promised the AMTA people that they get the same 
as last year. That takes almost all the $5.5 billion. It is no wonder 
that the bill spills beyond $5.5 billion. It is--without any 
disrespect--a collection of the wish lists of members of the Ag 
Committee thrown together, listed ad seriatim. When you add up the 
total, it happens to come to $7.4 billion-plus.
  You can say: Why not? But I am suggesting the ``why not.'' I think it 
is fairly clear it does not come close to our friends in the House. It 
does not come close to the requirements of the President to sign the 
bill. Although it may satisfy Members who say we have to go home and 
say we did the very best we could, that will not satisfy American 
farmers who, in the end result, do not get the money.
  Let me just add, if there is anybody in this body with a perverse 
belief that we should be doing nothing here--in other words, in his or 
her heart of hearts who says, why are we having another farm debate; Is 
there no end of expenditure that is required?--if such a Member exists 
who perversely says, these folks, out of their own overlawyering and 
overadvocacy, will kill each other off, the net result at the end of 
the day will be zero expenditure, and that is a good result because 
that leaves $5.5 billion for something else in life that is more 
important--there could be a problem.
  I suppose my suggestion would be, if there is not a constructive 
majority on my amendment, those folks will be interspersed with those 
purporting to be friends of farmers and suggesting more and more. The 
two extremes will finally get their wish, which is no bill.
  I am not one of them. In a straightforward way, we have offered a 
pragmatic solution--not my own bill, not one that I find has 
extraordinary merit, but one that I believe has enough merit to be the 
basis for a good conclusion of a lot of difficulty in farmland and a 
lot of difficulty we have as legislators. It is something to broker all 
the interests of America into this particular situation.
  At the appropriate time, I am hopeful Members will vote in favor of 
the amendment. I have been advised that there may in due course be a 
motion to table my amendment. Some have suggested that would offer at 
least a clue of the strength of how we are doing. I hope that will not 
come too soon, before Members really have considered what our options 
are, because I predict, in the event my amendment is tabled and no 
longer really is a viable possibility, almost all of the possibilities 
that follow are fairly grim.
  If, for example, other amendments should be adopted that are more 
than $5.5 billion or the basic underlying bill, which is about 7.4, the 
odds of that becoming legislation are zero. Members need to know that 
at the outset. There has never been a more explicit set of messages 
from the White House before we even start. One could say, well, let's 
taunt the President; let's sort of see really what he wants to do. That 
is not a very good exercise, given 3 days of recess and the need for 
these checks by September 30.
  In addition, if my amendment fails, this I suppose offers open season 
for anybody who has an agricultural problem in America. If this is 
going to be a failing exercise, why not bring up a whole raft of 
disputes, try them on for size, sort of test the body, and see what 
sort of support there is out there as a preliminary for the farm bill. 
This really offers spring training for arguments that might be out 
there in due course. We might try out a whole raft of dairy amendments, 
for example, try to resolve that extraordinary problem, all on this 
bill with both sides predicting filibusters that curl your hair 
throughout the whole of August, not just the whole of this week, or we 
could try out other experiments that have been suggested as Members 
truly believe we ought to discuss the trade problems and work out 
priorities with Social Security or Medicare and how we do those things.
  Given the rules of the Senate, you could say, why not? Is anybody 
going to say it is nongermane? Does anybody really want to bring the 
thing to a conclusion?

[[Page 15056]]

  I simply do want to bring it to a conclusion. I am hopeful that after 
both parties, both sides of the aisle, have considered the options, 
they will adopt my amendment, and we will swiftly join hands with the 
House and the President and give assurance to American farmers, which, 
as I understand, was the beginning of our enterprise.
  I thank the Chair and the Senate for allowing me to make this 
extensive presentation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Indiana, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, someone for whom I have enormous respect 
and listen carefully when the Senator from Indiana speaks on a subject. 
He has always done his homework, and he has a clear view. In this 
circumstance, I regret to say I have a different view.
  As I look at the history over the last 3 years of the assistance 
bills we have passed in the Senate for agriculture in these situations, 
this is a very modest bill. In fact, it is significantly less than we 
have passed in each of the last 3 years.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana is precisely what 
passed in the House. It is exactly the legislation that comes to us 
from that body. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the 
Republican chairman, has, in his written views on this bill, said it is 
inadequate, has pointed out that this bill would provide $1 billion 
less than what we have passed in the last 3 years--$1 billion less than 
what has been passed each of the last 3 years to assist farmers at a 
time of real economic hardship. And as the Republican chairman of the 
House Agriculture Committee pointed out, this is at a time when farmers 
face the lowest real prices since the Great Depression.
  The hard reality here is that prices for everything farmers buy have 
gone up, up, and away, especially energy prices, and yet the prices 
they receive are at a 70-year low in real terms. That is the situation 
we confront today. That is the hard reality of what we face today. The 
decision we have to make is, are we going to respond in a serious way, 
or are we going to fail to respond?
  I hope very much that we will just look at the record. This chart 
depicts it very well. The green line is the prices farmers paid for 
inputs. The red is the prices farmers have received from 1991 through 
2000. Look at the circumstance we have faced. The prices farmers have 
paid for inputs have gone up, up, and up. The prices farmers have 
received have declined precipitously.
  That is the situation our farmers are facing. We can either choose to 
respond to that or we can fail. I hope we respond. I hope we respond 
quickly because the Congressional Budget Office has told us very 
clearly: If we fail to respond this week, the money in this bill will 
be scored as having been passed and effective in the year 2002. In 
effect, we would lose $5.5 billion available to help farmers.
  There has been a lot of suggestion that things have been improving 
lately. I don't know exactly what they are talking about in terms of 
improvement. We have searched the markets to try to find where these 
improvements are occurring.
  There has been modest improvement in lifestock. We do not see 
improvement in the program crops or the nonprogram crops, the things 
that are really covered by this bill.
  Let me go back to what the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in 
the House of Representatives said about this very amendment, this 
precise legislation, that is before us now. This is the Republican 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. He said: H.R. 2213 as 
reported by the Agriculture Committee is inadequate in at least two 
respects:
  First, the assistance level is not sufficient to address the needs of 
farmers and ranchers in the 2001 crop-year.
  Second, the bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely 
unaddressed.
  This is the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the 
House of Representatives talking about the very legislation being 
offered by the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in the 
Senate today.
  This is, again from the House Agriculture chairman, at a time when 
real net cash income on the farm is at its lowest level since the Great 
Depression, and the cost of production is expected to set a record 
high. H.R. 2213, that has precisely the same provisions as are being 
offered by the Senator from Indiana, cuts supplemental help to farmers 
by $1 billion from last year to this year. Hardest hit will be wheat, 
corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybean, and 
other oilseed farmers since the cuts will come at their expense.
  I say to my colleagues, if they are representing wheat farmers, if 
they are representing corn farmers, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, 
soybean, and other oilseed farmers, to vote for the amendment of the 
Senator from Indiana is to cut assistance to their producers at the 
very time they are suffering from this circumstance.
  The prices they pay are increasing each and every year. The prices 
they receive are plunging.
  The House Agriculture Committee chairman went on to say, H.R. 2213, 
the bill that was reported by the House committee, the identical 
language which has been offered here, also fails to address the needs 
of dairy farmers, sugar beet and sugar cane farmers, farmers who graze 
their wheat, barley and oats, as well as farmers who are denied 
marketing loan assistance either because they do not have an AMTA 
contract or because they lost beneficial interest in their crops.
  The House Agriculture chairman went on to say, earlier this year, 20 
farm groups pegged the need in farm country for the 2001 crop-year at 
$9 billion. We do not have $9 billion available to us. We have, under 
the budget resolution, $5.5 billion available to us, and that is what 
the bill from the Agriculture Committee provides, $5.5 billion this 
year, $1.9 billion out of what is available to us next year in 2002.
  What the amendment from the Senator from Indiana would provide is 
$5.5 billion this year, period. It is not enough. It represents, 
according to the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in 
the House, a billion dollar cut from what we did last year. That is not 
what we should do.
  The House Agriculture Committee chairman went on in his report to 
say, those who championed this legislation, as reported in the 
committee, argued in part a cut in help to farmers this year is 
necessary to save money for a rewrite of the farm bill, but the fly in 
the ointment is many farmers are deeply worried about whether they can 
make it through this year, let alone next year.
  That is what we are down to in farm country across America. We are 
down to a question of survival. In my State, I have never seen such a 
loss of hope as has occurred in the agricultural sector, and it is the 
biggest industry in my State. If one were out there and they were 
paying for everything they buy, all of the inputs they use, every input 
going up, up, and up --if this chart extended to 2001, it would be more 
dramatic--we would see the prices going up even further.
  On the other hand, if we looked at the prices for everything one sold 
going almost straight down, they would be hopeless, too.
  This chart does not show just the last 6 months. This pattern of 
prices is since 1996. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers. These are 
the numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  The pattern of the prices which farmers receive is virtually straight 
down, and the prices they pay have been going up, up, up.
  I do not know what could be more clear. We have an obligation to 
help. We have an obligation to move this legislation. We have a 
requirement to move this legislation this week, not just through this 
Chamber but through the whole process. It has to be conferenced with 
the House, and the conference report has to be voted on before we go on 
break or we are going

[[Page 15057]]

to lose $5.5 billion. The money will be gone because the Congressional 
Budget Office has told us very clearly if this bill is not passed 
before we leave on break, they will score this legislation, even though 
it is being passed in fiscal year 2001, as affecting 2002 because they 
say the money cannot get out to farmers before the end of the fiscal 
year.
  It is all at stake in this debate we are having, and I urge my 
colleagues to think very carefully about what they do in these coming 
votes.
  I will close the way I started, by referring to the report of the 
chairman from the House Agriculture Committee, who said very clearly 
the identical legislation, which is contained in the amendment from the 
Senator from Indiana, is inadequate. This is the Republican chairman of 
the House Agriculture Committee, and he calls the amendment being 
offered inadequate in at least two respects: First, the assistance 
level is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers and ranchers in 
the 2001 crop-year.
  Second, the bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely 
unaddressed.
  Finally, he said, clearly this legislation, precisely what we are 
going to be voting on in the Senate, cuts supplemental help to farmers 
by $1 billion from last year to this year. We are cutting at the time 
we see a desperate situation in farm country all across America. It 
does not make sense. It is not what we should do. We ought to reject 
the amendment by the Senator from Indiana.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest we move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee for pointing out the letter we received from the 
Office of Management and Budget, which is not signed, but it is from 
the Office of Management and Budget and says: ``The President's senior 
advisers would recommend he veto the Senate bill we have before us 
based upon improvements in agricultural markets. Stronger livestock and 
crop prices means that the need for additional Federal assistance 
continues to diminish.''
  I grant that livestock prices are a little bit higher. Are crop 
prices better than last year? Yes, but last year was a 15-year low. So 
it has come up a little bit. We are still at a 10- or 12-year low in 
crop prices. Simply because they were a little bit better than last 
year's disastrously low prices does not mean we don't have a need for 
additional farmer assistance. We do need it desperately.
  It seems to me if that is the advice the President is getting, he is 
getting bad advice. I hope the President--he is the President; he does 
make the final decision--will look at the low crop prices we have all 
over America, and not only low crop prices, that is just looking at one 
thing. Crop prices may be marginally better than last year, but the 
input costs have skyrocketed.
  We all know what has happened to fuel prices and fertilizer prices. 
They have skyrocketed. So the gap between what the farmer is receiving 
and what he is paying out continues to widen, as indicated in the chart 
of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  The President's advisers do not really know what is happening in farm 
country.
  The Senator from North Dakota read from the report of the Agriculture 
Committee. I reemphasize that the chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, a Republican, Larry Combest from Texas, along with 17 
members of the House Agriculture Committee, said their bill was 
inadequate for two reasons: One, it is not sufficient to address the 
needs of farmers and ranchers; second, the scope is too narrow, leaving 
many needs completely unaddressed.
  He points out that earlier this year 20 farm groups pegged the need 
for the 2001 crop-year at $9 billion. The farmers represent, according 
to Larry Combest's letter, the views of 17 members of the Agriculture 
Committee. The farmers they represent had every reason to believe the 
help this year would be at least comparable to the help Congress 
provided last year. Producers who graze their wheat, barley, and oats, 
as well as producers who are denied marketing loan assistance--either 
because they do not have an AMTA crop or they lost beneficial interest 
in their crops--need help, too.
  As this process moves forward, the letter continues, we will work to 
build a more sturdy bridge over this year's financial straits, straits 
that may otherwise threaten to separate many farmers from the promise 
of the next farm bill.
  If all we are going to do is adopt the farm bill the House passed, 
there is no bridge. They are saying they hope the Senate might do 
something else so we can work on building that bridge.
  A letter dated March 13, 2001, to the Honorable Pete Domenici, 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is signed by 21 Members of the 
Senate on both sides of the aisle: Senators Cochran, Hutchison, Breaux, 
Landrieu, Bond, Sessions, Lincoln, Shelby, Bunning, Helms, McConnell, 
Craig, Cleland, Inhofe, Thurmond, Fitzgerald, Miller, Frist, Thomas, 
Hutchinson, and Hagel.
  It says:

       Specifically, since conditions are not appreciably improved 
     for 2001, we support making market loss assistance available 
     so that the total amount of assistance available through the 
     2001 Agricultural Market Transition Act payment and the 
     Market Loss Assistance payments will be the same as was 
     available for the 2000 crop.

  Further, the letter says:

       In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices, 
     U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing 
     input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates.

  Further reading from the letter:

       With projections that farm income will not improve in the 
     near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at 
     least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as 
     provided for the 2000 crop.

  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2001.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Pete: We are writing to request your assistance in 
     including appropriate language in the FY02 budget resolution 
     so that emergency economic loss assistance can be made 
     available for 2001 and 2002 or until a replacement for the 
     1996 Farm Bill can be enacted. Specifically, since conditions 
     are not appreciably improved for 2001, we support making 
     market loss assistance available so that the total amount of 
     assistance available through the 2001 Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act payment and the Market Loss Assistance 
     payments will be the same as was available for the 2000 crop. 
     We understand it is unusual to ask that funds to be made 
     available in the current fiscal year be provided in a budget 
     resolution covering the next fiscal year, but the financial 
     stress in U.S. agriculture is extraordinary.
       According to the USDA and other prominent agriculture 
     economists, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to face 
     persistent low prices and depressed farm income. According to 
     testimony presented by USDA on February 14, 2001, ``a strong 
     rebound in farm prices and income from the market place for 
     major crops appears unlikely . . . assuming no supplemental 
     assistance, net cash farm income in 2001 is projected to be 
     the lowest level since 1994 and about $4 billion below the 
     average of the 1990's.'' The USDA statement also said . . .'' 
     (a) national farm financial crisis has not occurred in large 
     part due to record government payments and greater off-farm 
     income.''
       In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices, 
     U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing 
     input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates. 
     According to USDA, ``increases in petroleum prices and 
     interest rates along with higher prices for other inputs, 
     including hired labor increased farmers' production expenses 
     by 4 percent or $7.6 billion in 2000, and for 2001 cash 
     production expenses are forecast to increase further. At the 
     same time, major crop prices for the 2000-01 season are 
     expected to register only modest improvement from last year's 
     15-25 year lows, reflecting another year of large global 
     production of major crops and ample stocks.''
       During the last 3 years, Congress has provided significant 
     levels of emergency economic assistance through so-called 
     Market Loss Assistance payments and disaster assistance for 
     weather related losses. During the last three years, the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation has provided about $72 billion 
     in economic and weather related loss assistance

[[Page 15058]]

     and conservation payments. The Congressional Budget Office 
     and USDA project that expenditures for 2001 will be $14-17 
     billion without additional market or weather loss assistance. 
     With projections that farm income will not improve in the 
     near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at 
     least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as 
     was provided for the 2000 crop.
       Congress has begun to evaluate replacement farm policy. In 
     order to provide effective, predictable financial support 
     which also allows farmers and ranchers to be competitive, 
     sufficient funding will be needed to allow the Agriculture 
     Committee to ultimately develop a comprehensive package 
     covering major commodities in addition to livestock and 
     specialty crops, rural development, trade and conservation 
     initiatives. Until new legislation can be enacted, it is 
     essential that Congress provide emergency economic assistance 
     necessary to alleviate the current financial crisis.
       We realize these recommendations add significantly to 
     projected outlays for farm programs. Our farmers and ranchers 
     clearly prefer receiving their income from the market. 
     However, while they strive to further reduce costs and expand 
     markets, federal assistance will be necessary until 
     conditions improve.
       We appreciate your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
         Thad Cochran, John Breaux, Kit Bond, Blanche Lincoln, Jim 
           Bunning, Mitch McConnell, Max Cleland, Strom Thurmond, 
           Zell Miller, Craig Thomas, Chuck Hagel, Tim Hutchinson, 
           Mary Landrieu, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Jesse 
           Helms, Larry Craig, James Inhofe, Peter Fitzgerald, 
           Bill Frist, Kay Bailey Hutchison.

  Mr. HARKIN. The bill reported from the Agriculture Committee meets 
everything in this letter, signed by all these Senators, sent to 
Senator Domenici. We have met the need. We have provided for the same 
market loss assistance payment this year as provided last year.
  The House bill that Senator Lugar has introduced as an amendment 
provides 85 percent of what was provided last year; the Agriculture 
Committee bill provides 100 percent. I hope Senators who sent this 
letter earlier to Senator Domenici recognize we met these needs; we 
provided 100 percent, exactly what they asked for, the same as 
available for the 2000 crop.
  As Senator Conrad pointed out, the gap, as pointed out in the letter, 
in rapidly increasing input costs, fuel, fertilizer, and high interest 
rates, still means farmers have a big gap out there between prices they 
are receiving and what they are paying out.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from Michigan, a 
valuable member of the Agriculture Committee.
  Ms. STABENOW. I take a moment to thank the chairman for his 
leadership in putting forward a bill that is balanced and that meets 
the criteria laid out, the needs expressed by Members on both sides of 
the aisle. I thank the Senator for putting together a package 
addressing those crops that are not considered program crops but are in 
severe financial situations.
  One example in the great State of Michigan, among many, are our apple 
growers who have needed assistance and received assistance--late but 
did receive assistance--last year. I am deeply concerned when we hear 
as much as 30 percent of the apple growers in this country will not 
make it past this season. If we are to look at their needs for, not the 
fiscal year, but as the Senator eloquently stated in the past, the crop 
year, and the needs of the farmers, it means the version that came from 
the Senate committee needs to be the version adopted.
  I ask my esteemed chairman, it is my understanding in the amendment 
before the Senate, there is not a specific loss payment for apple 
growers; is that correct? I could address other specialty needs in 
dairy, sugar, and a whole range of needs in the great State of 
Michigan, but is it true that this does not, as the Senate Agriculture 
Committee bill does, put forward dollars specifically for our apple 
growers? It is my understanding this amendment adopted by the House of 
Representatives would not address the serious needs of America's apple 
growers.
  Mr. HARKIN. I respond to my colleague from Michigan, she is 
absolutely right, there is nothing in the House bill providing any help 
for the tremendous loss, 30-some percent loss, that apple producers 
have experienced in this country. We are talking about apple producers 
from Oregon, from Washington, Michigan, to Maine, Massachusetts, New 
York, Pennsylvania, all who experienced tremendous losses.
  Under the AMTA payment system, they don't get money, but they are 
farmers. They are farmers.
  Many are family farmers and they need help, too. So I think, I say to 
my friend from Michigan, what Larry Combest and the 17 others who 
signed the ``additional views'' on the House bill said was that the 
bill was too narrow in scope. There are a lot of other farmers in this 
country who are hurting, who need some help.
  So, yes, I say to my friend from Michigan, we provided $150 million 
in there to help our apple farmers. That is a small amount compared to 
the $7.5 billion in the total package. But it is very meaningful. It 
will go to those apple producers, and it will save them and keep a lot 
of them in business for next year, I say to my friend from Michigan.
  I especially want to thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing 
this to our attention. To be frank, I don't have a lot of apple growers 
in Iowa. We have a few, but not to the extent of many other States. It 
was through the intercession and the great work done by the Senator 
from Michigan that this was brought to our attention, the terrible 
plight of our apple farmers all over America. I thank her for sticking 
up for our family farmers.
  I just have a couple of other things. The Lugar amendment, the House 
bill, strikes out all the money we have for conservation. It strikes 
all the conservation money out. Earlier this year--June 14 of this 
year--130 Members of the House of Representatives, including many 
members of the House Agriculture Committee, wrote a letter to Chairman 
Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm. They said:

       We believe conservation must be the centerpiece of the next 
     farm bill.

  They talk about the farm bill, but, they said:

       We should not leave farmers waiting while a new farm bill 
     is debated. We urge you to work with the House Appropriations 
     Committee to increase FY 2002 annual and supplemental funding 
     for voluntary incentive-based programs. In particular, we 
     urge you to use 30 percent of emergency funds to help farmers 
     impacted by drought, flooding and rising energy costs, 
     through conservation programs. Currently, demand for the 
     Environmental Quality Incentives Program exceeds $150 
     million. Demand for the Farmland Protection Program exceeds 
     $200 million, demand for the Wetlands Reserve Program exceeds 
     $350 million, and demand for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
     Program exceeds $150 million.

  That is signed by 130 Members of the House.
  I have to be honest; we didn't meet 30 percent of the emergency funds 
but we did put in about 7 percent, if I am not mistaken--a little over 
7 percent. The Lugar amendment gives zero for conservation--zero.
  Again, these are family farmers. Many of these farmers do not get the 
AMTA payments that go out, but they are farmers nonetheless and they 
need help. Certainly we need to promote conservation because a lot of 
these farms simply will lie dormant if we do not provide this 
assistance in this bill.
  There are two other things I want to point out. I have a letter I 
received today from some Members of the House--two Members. The House 
bill passed by 1 vote. The House Agricultural Committee passed out the 
Lugar amendment. What Senator Lugar is putting out there is the House 
Agriculture Committee bill. It passed by 1 vote. I have a letter from 
two members of that committee who voted on the prevailing side. Listen 
to what they said:

       Dear Chairman Harkin: Although we supported H.R. 2213--The 
     Crop-Year 2001 Agricultural Economic Assistance Act--as it 
     passed the House of Representatives, we applaud the 
     comprehensive approach you have taken in the aid package 
     passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee to address the 
     many diverse needs of agricultural and rural communities.
       By including additional funding for conservation programs, 
     nutrition, rural development and research, many farmers in 
     rural

[[Page 15059]]

     communities who do not benefit from the traditional commodity 
     programs will receive assistance this year. In particular, 
     the $542 million you included for conservation programs will 
     help reduce the $2 billion backlog of applications from 
     farmers and ranchers who are waiting for USDA assistance to 
     protect farm and ranchland threatened by sprawling 
     development and critical wetlands and riparian areas for 
     wildlife habitat, water quality, and floodplains.

  Signed by Representative Ron Kind and Representative Wayne Gilchrest.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin: Although we supported H.R. 2213--The 
     Crop Year 2001 Agriculture Economic Assistance Act--as it 
     passed the House of Representatives, we applaud the 
     comprehensive approach you have taken in the aid package 
     passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee to address the 
     many diverse needs of agriculture and rural communities. We 
     look forward to working with you to reconcile the competing 
     measures in order to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of 
     both our family farmers and the overall environment.
       By including additional funding for conservation programs, 
     nutrition, rural development and research, many farmers and 
     rural communities who do not benefit from the traditional 
     commodity programs will receive assistance this year. In 
     particular, the $542 million you included for conservation 
     programs will help reduce the $2 billion backlog of 
     applications from farmers and ranchers who are waiting for 
     USDA assistance to protect farm and ranchland threatened by 
     sprawling development and critical wetlands and riparian 
     areas for wildlife habitat, water quality, and floodplains.
       Earlier this year, 140 House members called on the House 
     Agriculture Committee to ``not leave farmers waiting while a 
     new farm bill is debated'' and instead allocate 30 percent of 
     emergency funding to conservation programs this year. Your 
     conservation package will maintain critical conservation 
     programs before the farm bill is reauthorized. Without this 
     additional funding, the Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland 
     Protection Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
     would cease to operate. It is our hope that the conferees 
     will view conservation programs favorably during conference 
     proceedings.
       We believe this short-term aid package should reflect the 
     needs of all farmers in this country and set the tone for the 
     next farm bill by taking a balanced approach to allocating 
     farm spending among many disparate needs.
           Sincerely,
     Ron Kind,
     Wayne Gilchrest,
                                              Members of Congress.

  Mr. HARKIN. Then I have a letter also today saying:

       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you today to express 
     my support for the comprehensive approach you have taken in 
     drafting the Senate agricultural economic assistance bill. In 
     providing important funds for nutrition and conservation, the 
     agriculture economic assistance package recognizes that the 
     jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee goes beyond the 
     critically important task of providing economic support for 
     producers of commodities.
       I urge you to ensure that the bill reported out of the 
     Senate retain these vitally important resources and look 
     forward to working with you to ensure that any bill sent to 
     the President is similarly cognizant of the broad array of 
     issues before the Agriculture Committees of the House and 
     Senate.
       Eva M. Clayton, Member of Congress.

  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you today to express 
     my support for the comprehensive approach that you have taken 
     in drafting the Senate agriculture economic assistance bill. 
     In providing important funds for nutrition and conservation, 
     the agriculture economic assistance package recognizes that 
     the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee goes beyond the 
     critically important task of providing economic support for 
     producers of commodities.
       In providing funds for important nutrition programs such as 
     the Senior Farmers Market and the Emergency Food Assistance 
     Program, the Committee acknowledges its responsibility to 
     ensure that American children live free from the specter of 
     hunger. Additionally, by providing important resources for 
     farmland conservation and environmental incentive payments, 
     the Committee recognizes the important fact that the 
     degradation of our natural resoruces and the decay of vitally 
     important water quality and farmland are emergencies that 
     affect our rural communities and thus are deserving of our 
     immedate attention.
       I urge you to ensure that the bill reported out of the 
     Senate retain these vitally important resources and look 
     forward to working with you to ensure that any bill sent to 
     the President is similarly cognizant of the broad array of 
     issues before the Agricultue Committees of the House and the 
     Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Eva M. Clayton,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. HARKIN. These are two people who voted for the House-passed bill, 
which only passed by 1 vote, I might add.
  So I would say there is a lot of support in the House of 
Representatives for what we have done in the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. I believe what we have done truly does provide that bridge.
  I will close this part of my remarks by just saying we have a limited 
amount of time. We need to get this bill out. We need to go to 
conference, which we could do tomorrow. If we can get this bill done 
today, we can go to conference tomorrow. I believe the conference would 
not last more than a couple of hours, and we could have this bill back 
here, I would say no later than late Wednesday, maybe Thursday, for 
final passage, and we could send it to the President.
  I believe his senior advisers notwithstanding, the President would 
listen to the voices here in the House and the Senate as to what is 
really needed.
  I also ask unanimous consent to print a news release in the Record 
that was put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation dated June 21. 
It says:

       The House Agriculture Committee's decision to provide only 
     $5.5 billion in a farm relief package ``is disheartening and 
     will not provide sufficient assistance needed by many farm 
     and ranch families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation 
     President Bob Stallman.
       We believe the needs exceed $7 billion.

  This is according to Mr. Stallman, president of the American Farm 
Bureau Federation.
  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Farm Bureau Disappointed in House Funding for Farmers

       Washington, DC, June 21, 2001.--The House Agriculture 
     Committee's decision to provide only $5.5 billion in a farm 
     relief package ``is disheartening and will not provide 
     sufficient assistance needed by many farm and ranch 
     families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation President 
     Bob Stallman.
       ``We believe needs exceed $7 billion,'' Stallman said. 
     ``The fact is agricultural commodity prices have not 
     strengthened since last year when Congress saw fit to provide 
     significantly more aid.''
       Stallman said securing additional funding will be a high 
     priority for Farm Bureau. He said the organization will now 
     turn its attention to the Senate and then the House-Senate 
     conference committee that will decide the fate of much-needed 
     farm relief.
       ``Four years of low prices has put a lot of pressure on 
     farmers. We need assistance to keep this sector viable,'' the 
     farm leader said.
       ``We've been told net farm income is rising but a closer 
     examination shows that is largely due to higher livestock 
     prices, not most of American agriculture,'' Stallman said.
       ``And, costs are rising for all farmers and ranchers due to 
     problems in the energy industry that are reflected in 
     increased costs for fuel and fertilizer. Farmers and ranchers 
     who produce grain, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and vegetables 
     need help and that assistance is needed soon.''

  Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter dated July 11 from the National 
Association of Wheat Growers that said:

       However, given current financial conditions, growers cannot 
     afford the reduced level of support provided by the House in 
     H.R. 2213. Wheat farmers across the nation are counting on a 
     market loss payment at the 1999 PFC rate. Thank you for your 
     leadership and support.
       Dusty Tallman, President of the National Association of 
     Wheat Growers.

  What is in our bill provides to wheat farmers across the country a 
market loss payment at the same rate they got in 1999.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

[[Page 15060]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                             of Wheat Growers,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin: As President of the National 
     Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), and on behalf of wheat 
     producers across the nation, I urge the Committee to draft a 
     2001 agriculture economic assistance package that provides 
     wheat producers with a market loss payment equal to the 1999 
     Production Flexibility Contract (AMTA) payment rate.
       NAWG understands Congress is facing difficult budget 
     decisions. We too are experiencing tight budgets in wheat 
     country. While wheat prices hover around the loan rate, PFC 
     payments this year have declined from $0.59 to $0.47. At the 
     same time, input costs have escalated. Fuel and oil expenses 
     are up 53 percent from 1999, and fertilizer costs have risen 
     33 percent this year alone.
       Given these circumstances, NAWG's first priority for the 
     2001 crop year is securing a market loss payment at the 1999 
     PFC rate. We believe a supplemental payment at $0.64 for 
     wheat--the same level provided in both 1999 and 2000--is 
     warranted and necessary to provide sufficient income support 
     to the wheat industry.
       NAWG has a history of supporting fiscal discipline and 
     respects efforts to preserve the integrity of the $73.5 
     billion in FY02-FY11 farm program dollars. However, given 
     current financial conditions, growers cannot afford the 
     reduced level of support provided by the House in H.R. 2213. 
     Wheat farmers across the nation are counting on a market loss 
     payment at the 1999 PFC rate.
       Thank you for your leadership and support.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dusty Tallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter from the National Corn Growers 
Association:

       Dear Chairman Harkin: We feel strongly that the Committee 
     should disburse these limited funds in a similar manner to 
     the FY00 economic assistance package--addressing the needs of 
     the 8 major crops--corn, wheat, barley, oats, oilseed, 
     sorghum, rice and cotton. . . .
       Again, we urge the Committee to allocate the market loss 
     assistance payments at the FY99 production flexibility 
     contract payment level for program crops.

  Our bill does exactly that. The House bill only puts in 85 percent.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter from the National Corn Growers 
Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            National Corn Growers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin: We write to urge you to take 
     immediate action on the $5.5 billion in funding for 
     agricultural economic assistance authorized in the FY01 
     budget resolution.
       The fiscal year 2001 budget resolution authorized $5.5 
     billion in economic assistance for those suffering through 
     low commodity prices in agriculture. However, these funds 
     must be dispersed by the US Department of Agriculture by 
     September 30, 2001. We are very concerned that any further 
     delay by Congress concerning these funds will severely hamper 
     USDA's efforts to release funds and will, in turn, be 
     detrimental to producers anxiously awaiting this relief.
       We feel strongly that the Committee should disperse these 
     limited funds in a similar manner to the FY00 economic 
     assistance package--addressing the needs of the eight major 
     crops--corn, wheat, barley, oats, oilseeds, sorghum, rice and 
     cotton. It is these growers who have suffered greatly from 
     the last two years of escalating fuel and other input costs. 
     The expectation of these program crop farmers is certainly 
     for a continuation of the supplemental AMTA at the 1999 
     level.
       Again, we urge the Committee to allocate the market loss 
     assistance payments at the FY99 production flexibility 
     contract payment for program crops. We feel strongly that 
     Congress should support the growers getting hit hardest by 
     increasing input costs.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Lee Klein,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another piece from the National 
Corn Growers Association in which they say the National Corn Growers 
Association is optimistic about the Senate Agriculture Committee's $7.5 
billion emergency aid package.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From NCGA News, July 26, 2001]

    NCGA Optimistic About Senate Agriculture Committee $7.5 Billion 
                         Emergency Aid Package

       The Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday approved a $7.5 
     billion emergency aid package for farmers in the current 
     fiscal year, championed by Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA).
       A substitute amendment offered by Richard Lugar (R-IN), 
     ranking member, failed by a vote of 12-9. Lugar sought an aid 
     package totaling $5.5 billion, similar to what the House 
     Agriculture Committee passed in late June.
       The package approved yesterday will provide help to program 
     crops such as corn, as well as to oilseeds, peanuts, sugar, 
     honey, cottonseed, tobacco, specialty crops, pulse crops, 
     wool and mohair, dairy and apples. The Senate package is 
     expected to move to floor consideration at anytime, where 
     Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) may offer an amendment to curb the 
     overall spending while maintaining emergency spending for the 
     major commodities.
       Because the aid packages passed by the Senate and House are 
     markedly different, a conference committee will be scheduled 
     to craft a compromise.
       ``This development places even more pressure on Congress to 
     act expeditiously, because any aid package approved by 
     Congress must be done soon so that the USDA can cut checks 
     and mail them to farmers before fiscal year ends on September 
     30, 2001,'' said National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 
     Vice President of Public Policy Bruce Knight.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a release from the National 
Farmers Union, in which they say:

       The National Farmers Union today applauded the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee on its approval of $7.4 billion in 
     emergency assistance for U.S. agriculture producers.

  I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Farmers Union Commends Senate on Emergency Assistance Package

       Washington, DC, July 25, 2001.--The National Farmers Union 
     (NFU) today applauded the Senate Agriculture Committee on its 
     approval of $7.4 billion in emergency assistance for U.S. 
     agriculture producers. The bill provides supplemental income 
     assistance to feed grains, wheat, rice and cotton producers 
     as well as specialty crop producers. The Senate measure 
     provides the needed assistance at the same levels as last 
     year and is $2 billion more than what is provided in a House 
     version of the measure. NFU urges expeditious passage by the 
     full Senate and resolution in the House/Senate conference 
     committee that adopts the much needed funding at the Senate 
     level.
       ``We commend Chairman Tom Harkin for his leadership in 
     crafting this assistance package,'' said Leland Swenson, 
     president of NFU. ``We are pleased that members of the 
     committee have chosen to provide funding that is comparable 
     to what many farmers requested at the start of this process. 
     This level of funding recognizes the needs that exist in 
     rural America at a time when farmers face continued low 
     commodity prices for row and specialty crops while input 
     costs for fuel, fertilizer and energy have risen rapidly over 
     the past year.''
       The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the Emergency 
     Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001 that provides $7.4 billion 
     in emergency assistance to a broad range of agriculture 
     producers and funds conservation programs. It also provides 
     loans and grants to encourage value-added products, 
     compensation for damage to flooded lands and support for bio-
     energy-based initiatives. The funding level is the same as 
     what was provided last year and is comparable to what NFU had 
     requested in order to meet today's needs for farmers and 
     ranchers. The House proposal provides $5.5 billion.
       ``We now urge the full Senate to quickly pass this much-
     needed assistance package,'' Swenson added. ``It is vital 
     that the House/Senate conference committee fund this measure 
     at the Senate level. As we meet the challenge of crafting a 
     new agriculture policy for the future, today's needs for 
     assistance are still great. We hope for swift action to help 
     America's farmers and ranchers.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter, dated today, from 
the American Farm Bureau Federation:

       Dear Senator Harkin: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     supports at least $5.5 billion in supplemental Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act payments and $500 million in market 
     loss assistance payments for oilseeds as part of the 
     emergency spending package for crop year 2001.

  Our bill does that. Senator Lugar's amendment does not.
  They state further:

       We also believe it is imperative to offer assistance to 
     peanut, fruit and vegetable producers. In addition, it is 
     crucial to extend

[[Page 15061]]

     the dairy price support in this bill since the current 
     program will expire in less than two months.
       All over this country agriculture has been facing historic 
     low prices and increasing production costs.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter, dated today, from Mr. Bob 
Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, be printed 
in the Record.
  Again, I point out that our bill meets these needs. The House bill 
does not. Our bill provides the assistance to peanut, fruit, and 
vegetable producers, and we do, indeed, extend the dairy price support 
program beyond its expiration date in 2 months.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                     American Farm


                                            Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     supports at least $5.5 billion in supplemental Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act payments and $500 million in market 
     loss assistance payments for oilseeds as part of the 
     emergency spending package for crop year 2001. We also 
     believe it is imperative to offer assistance to peanut, fruit 
     and vegetable producers. In addition, it is crucial to extend 
     the dairy price support in this bill since the current 
     program will expire in less than two months.
       All over this country agriculture has been facing historic 
     low prices and increasing production costs. These challenges 
     have had a significant effect on the incomes of U.S. 
     producers. At the same time, projections of improvement for 
     the near future are not very optimistic. We appreciate your 
     leadership in providing assistance to address the low-income 
     situation that U.S. producers are currently facing.
       We thank you for your leadership and look forward to 
     working with you to provide assistance for agricultural 
     producers.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the Food and 
Research Action Center.

       We urge you to continue your leadership in support for the 
     nutrition programs contained in S. 1246.

  Our bill does it. The House bill doesn't.
  It is signed by James D. Weill, president of the Food and Research 
Action Center.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Food Research & Action Center,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Russell Senate Office 
         Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you about S. 1246. The 
     Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001.
       As in the House bill, S. 1246 authorizes an additional $10 
     million for expenses associated with the transportation and 
     distribution of commodities in The Emergency Food Assistance 
     Program (TEFAP). The Senate version also devotes additional 
     dollars to support school meal programs targeted to low-
     income children; increases the mandatory commodity purchases 
     for the School Lunch Program; and provides additional funding 
     for Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Programs.
       We urge you to continue your leadership and support for the 
     nutrition programs contained in S. 1246. We also thank you 
     for your leadership earlier this month in the hearings on 
     nutrition programs in the Farm Bill, and look forward to 
     working with you on important food stamp improvements later 
     this year in that bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James D. Weill,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the National 
Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs.

       I am writing to express the strong support of the National 
     Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs to include 
     $20 million for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot 
     Program in S. 1246.
       For States and Indian Tribal organizations administering 
     the SFMNPP, an early decision by Congress and administration 
     to continue this small but vital program is of the utmost 
     importance. States and Tribes faced a very short timeframe 
     for application and implementation of this program last year 
     and would be greatly benefited by quick action to renew this 
     new but very popular program.

  It is signed by Mike Bevins, President of the National Association of 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  National Association of Farmers'


                                     Market Nutrition Program,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Russell Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin, I am writing to express the strong 
     support of the National Association of Farmers' Market 
     Nutrition Program (NAFMNP) to include $20 million for the 
     Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program (SFMNPP) in S. 
     1246, the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001. We 
     understand consideration of this legislation on the Senate 
     floor is imminent.
       For states and Indian Tribal organizations administering 
     the SFMNPP, an early decision by Congress and the 
     Administration to continue this small but vital program is of 
     the utmost importance. States and Tribes faced a very short 
     time frame for application and implementation of this program 
     last year and would be greatly benefited by quick action to 
     renew this new, but very popular program.
       We urge you to include the $20 million earmarked in S. 1246 
     for the SFMNNP in your final version of the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Zy Weinberg,
                                     (For Mike Bevins, President).

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the American School 
Food Service Association.

       Dear Senator Harkin: Specifically, we strongly support 
     section 301 to preserve entitlement commodities during the 
     2001-2002 school year for schools that participate in the 
     National School Lunch Program.

  That is in our bill, and it is not in the House bill.
  It is signed by Marcia Smith for the American School Food Service 
Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              American School Food


                                          Service Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 31, 2001.
                                                      Re: S. 1246.

     Senator Tom Harkin,
     Senate Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin, On behalf of the American School Food 
     Service Association, thank you for your leadership with the 
     Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001 (S. 1246), 
     which the Senate Agriculture Committee approved and sent to 
     the full Senate for consideration.
       Specifically, we strongly support Section 301 to preserve 
     entitlement commodities during the 2001-02 school year for 
     schools that participate in the National School Lunch 
     Program. Without this provision, any participating school 
     that received bonus commodities from the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture would have its entitlement commodities under the 
     NSLP reduced. As you know, this would result in a de facto 
     funding cut of between $50 million and $60 million for the 
     NSLP during school year 2001-02. Further, with an eye to 
     Conference, ASFSA does not support a block grant approach to 
     the distribution of commodities.
       On behalf of ASFSA's members and the children we serve, 
     thank you again for your leadership on this important issue. 
     Please let me know if there is anything else we can do to 
     further S. 1246.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Marcia L. Smith,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, to sum up--and I will come back to this 
later on--we looked at the Nation as a whole. We looked at all farmers 
in this country. All farmers need help, plus there are others in rural 
communities who need help. There are conservation programs, as was 
pointed out by a letter I read from the 130 Members of the House, that 
need to be continued beyond the end of this fiscal year. We addressed 
all of these needs, and we did it within the confines of the budget 
resolution.
  Each Senator on that side of the aisle or on this side of the aisle 
who is opposed to our bill could raise a point of order. But no point 
of order lies against this bill because it is within the budget 
resolution. Therefore, there is no reason for the President to veto it, 
unless he simply does not want our apple farmers to receive help, or to 
extend the dairy price support program,

[[Page 15062]]

or to help some of our peanut and cottonseed farmers, and others who 
need this assistance, or perhaps he doesn't think we should have a 
nutrition program.
  Quite frankly, we have met our obligations to provide for the full 
AMTA payment for fiscal year 2001--the full AMTA payment. The House 
bill only provides 85 percent.
  I say to my fellow Senators, if you want to provide the same level of 
assistance to farmers this year under AMTA as we did last year, you 
cannot support Senator Lugar's amendment. That will wipe it out and 
make it only 85 percent, which is what the House bill does.
  I hope after some more debate we can recognize that we have met our 
obligations in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This is the right 
course of action to take for this body and for the President to sign.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to yield to my friend, the 
Senator from Idaho, but first I wish to make a couple of remarks. One 
is that if you came in here and you were listening to the difficulty 
that some talk about in getting this job done prior to the time the 
$5.5 billion disappears, then you would imagine the thing to do is to 
go ahead and have a bill similar to the House. Then it would be there, 
and we would come back with the other $2 billion, which is in the 
budget for next year. It isn't as if this is a long time off. It is 
right there, and it can be done. It isn't as if it isn't going to 
happen. It will happen. We are taking out next year's and putting it in 
this year. You can bet that there will be a request to replace that 
with new money next year.
  It is sort of an interesting debate. It is also interesting that the 
House version includes $4.6 billion in AMTA payments.
  There was mention by the Senator from Michigan that it didn't go 
beyond that. Actually, there is $424 million in economic assistance for 
oilseeds; $54 million in economic assistance for peanut producers; $129 
million for tobacco; $17 million for wool and mohair; $85 million for 
cottonseeds; and $26 million for specialty crops, which is for the 
States to disperse. Over $3.5 million goes to Michigan which could go 
to apple growers. This idea that somehow the people have been left out 
is simply not the case.
  I now yield to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. THOMAS. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this has been cleared with Senator Lugar, 
Senator Harkin, and both leaders.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. today I be 
recognized to move to table Senator Lugar's amendment, and that the 15 
minutes prior to that vote be equally divided between Senators Harkin 
and Lugar.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I think I will object simply to talk 
with the others to see if they need more time. I hope they do not. But 
at this moment, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
yielding. I will be brief, for I have sat here most of the morning 
listening to both the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Iowa 
discuss what is now pending.
  There is no question in my mind--and any Senator from an agricultural 
State--that we are in a state of emergency with production agriculture 
in this country. I certainly respect all of the work that the chairman 
of the Senate Ag Committee has done, the authorizing committee. I no 
longer serve on that committee, but my former chairman and ranking 
member of the Ag Appropriations Committee is in this Chamber, and I 
serve on that committee. So I have the opportunity to look at both the 
authorizing side and the appropriating side of this issue.
  Clearly, I would like to hold us at or near where we were a year ago. 
At the same time, I do not believe, as we struggle to write a new farm 
bill, that we should write massive or substantially new farm policy 
into an appropriations bill that is known as an Emergency Agricultural 
Assistance Act. There is adequate time to debate critical issues as to 
how we adjust and change agricultural policy in our country to fit new 
or changing needs within production agriculture.
  I have been listening to, and I have read in detail, what the 
Senator, the chairman of the Ag Committee, has brought. You have heard 
the ranking member, the Senator from Indiana, say he is not pleased 
with what he is doing today. In fact, the amendment that he offered in 
the committee--one that I could support probably more easily than I 
could support the amendment he has offered in this Chamber today--is 
not being offered for a very simple reason; it is a question of timing.
  The chairman of the authorizing committee but a few moments ago said: 
If we pass this bill today, we can conference tomorrow. We can go out 
and have it back to the floor by Thursday or Friday of this week.
  I would think you could make a statement like that if the House and 
the Senate were but a mile apart. We are not. We are 2,500 to 3,000 
miles apart at this moment. We are $2 billion apart on money. The 
chairman of the authorizing committee has just, in a few moments, 
discussed the substantial policy differences on which we are apart. And 
I am quite confident--I know this chairman; I have served on 
conferences with him; he is a tough negotiator; he is not going to give 
up easily, as will the House not give up easily on their positions, 
largely because we are writing a farm bill separate from 
appropriations, as we should.
  But both sides have spilled into the question of policy as it relates 
to these vehicles. What we are really talking about now, and what we 
should be talking about now, are the dollars and cents that we can get 
to production agriculture before September 30 of this fiscal year.
  I happen to be privileged to serve on leadership, and we are 
scratching our heads at this moment trying to figure out how we get 
this done. How do we get the House and the Senate to conference, and 
the conference report back to the House and the Senate to be voted on 
before we go into adjournment, and to the President's desk in a form 
that he will sign?
  I do not think the President is threatening at all. I think he is 
making a very matter-of-fact statement about keeping the Congress 
inside their budget so that we do not spill off on to Medicare money. 
We have heard a great deal from the other side about the fact that we 
are spending the Medicare trust fund. But this morning we have not 
heard a peep about that as we spend about $2 billion more than the 
budget allocates in the area of agriculture.
  So for anyone to assume that getting these two vehicles--the House 
and the Senate bills--to conference, and creating a dynamic situation 
in which we can conference overnight and have this back before we 
adjourn on Friday or Saturday, to be passed by us and signed by the 
President, is, at best, wishful thinking.
  We are going to have a letter from OMB in a few moments that very 
clearly states that this has to get done and has to get scored before 
the end of the fiscal year or we lose the money.
  The ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee, who is in this 
Chamber, and certainly the chairman of the authorizing committee, do 
not want that to happen, and neither does this Senator. In fact, I will 
make extraordinary efforts not to have it happen because that truly 
complicates our budget situation well beyond what we would want it to 
be, and it would restrict dramatically our ability to meet the needs of 
production agriculture across this country as we speak.
  I am amazed that we are this far apart. The House acted a month ago.

[[Page 15063]]

We have been slow to act in the Senate. And now it is hurry up and 
catch up at the very last minute prior to an adjournment for what has 
always been a very important recess for the Congress.
  I will come back to this Chamber this afternoon to talk about the 
policy differences, but I think it is very important this morning to 
spell out the dynamics of just getting us where we need to get before 
we adjourn, I hope, Friday evening late. And I am not sure we get there 
because we are so far apart.
  The chairman talks about passing the bill this afternoon, assuming 
that we would table the amendment of the Senator from Indiana; then 
this would pass, forgetting there are other Senators in the Cloakrooms 
waiting to come out and talk about an issue called dairy compacts, and 
the Northeast Dairy Compact legislation or policy authority ending at 
the end of September, with no train leaving town between now and then 
that gets that out. And to assume that is going to be a simple debate 
that will take but a few hours, I would suggest: How about a day or 2 
to resolve what is a very contentious issue? I know I want to speak on 
it. I know a good many other Senators do. We do not want to see our 
Nation divided up into marketing territories that you cannot enter and 
leave easily, as our commerce clause in the Constitution would suggest.
  So those are some of the issues that are before us today and tomorrow 
and the next day. That means as long as we are in this Chamber debating 
this bill on these very critical issues, it will not be in conference. 
And those very difficult policy issues and that $2 billion worth of 
spending authority will not get resolved where the differences lie.
  So let us think reasonably and practically about our situation. The 
clock is ticking very loudly as it relates to our plan for adjournment 
and our need to get our work done, and done so in a timely fashion.
  I do not criticize; I only observe because much of what the Senator 
from Iowa has talked about I would support. But I would support it in a 
new farm bill properly worked out with the dynamics between the House 
and the Senate, not in appropriating legislation done in the last 
minute, to be conferenced in an all-night session, or two or three, to 
find our differences, and to work them out. I am not sure we can get 
there. If we can't, we lose $5.5 billion to production agriculture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this morning I was very impressed by 
the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar.
  At the markup session of our Committee on Agriculture, I had come to 
that session with a compromise that I was prepared to offer because I 
thought it would more nearly reflect the programs Congress provided for 
emergency or economic assistance to farmers in the last two crop-years.
  We had testimony in our Appropriations Committee from the chief 
economist and other high-ranking officials at the Department of 
Agriculture that the situation facing farmers this year is very 
similar--just as bad--as it was last year and the year before. So the 
record supports the action being taken by the Congress to respond to 
this serious economic problem facing agricultural producers around the 
country.
  It was the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee during the last 2 
years that had been given the responsibility, under the budget 
resolution, for writing this disaster or economic assistance program. 
And we did that. The Congress approved it. It was signed and enacted 
into law. And the disbursements have been made.
  This year the budget resolution gave the authority for implementing 
the program for economic assistance to the legislative committee in the 
Senate, the Agriculture Committee. I also serve on that committee. The 
distinguished Senator from Iowa chairs that committee, and Senator 
Lugar is the ranking member and former chairman of that committee. I 
have great respect for all of my fellow members on the committee, but I 
have to say that arguments made this morning, and the proposal made 
this morning at the beginning of the debate by Senator Lugar, to me, 
are right on target in terms of what our best opportunity is at this 
time for providing needed assistance to agricultural producers.
  The facts are that the House has acted and the administration has 
also reviewed the situation and expressed its view. We have the letter 
signed by Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, setting forth the administration's view and intentions with 
respect to legislation they will sign or recommend to be vetoed. If we 
are interested in helping farmers now, in providing funding for 
distressed farmers to help pay loans from lenders, to get additional 
financing as may be needed, if that is our goal, then the best and 
clearest opportunity for providing that assistance is to take the 
advice and suggestion of Senator Lugar and vote for the alternative he 
has provided, which is the House-passed bill.
  It obviates the need to conference with the House, to work out 
differences between the two approaches, which is necessarily going to 
delay the process. To assume that that conference can be completed in 2 
or 3 days and funds be disbursed in an appropriate and efficient way is 
wishful thinking. It is no better than wishful thinking. I do not think 
producers would like to take that chance under the conditions of 
distress that exist in agricultural communities all over this country 
today.
  If we could take a poll now among those who would be the 
beneficiaries of this legislation, I am convinced most would say: Let's 
take the House bill now, use the budget authority for new farm bill 
provisions that will strengthen our agricultural programs for the 
future, into the next crop year and beyond, so that we can guard 
against, in a more effective way, the distresses that confront farmers 
today. But for now, to deal with the emergency and the problems of 
today, let's pass a bill that will put money in the pockets of farmers.
  That is the object, not to improve conservation programs which can be 
done in the next farm bill. Of course, we are going to reauthorize 
these conservation programs. But doing it with $1 billion gratuitously 
from the budget resolution that provides for economic assistance to 
farmers, that is not direct economic assistance to farmers. That is an 
indirect benefit, of course, to agricultural producers and to society 
in general, but it is not money in the pockets of farmers, as the 
House-passed bill provides and as the Lugar alternative before the 
Senate today provides.
  I had hoped there could be a way to provide exactly the same 
assistance we provided last year and the year before. I crafted an 
amendment I was prepared to offer in the Senate Agriculture Committee 
that would do just that.
  My amendment would provide for $5.46 billion for market loss 
assistance to farmers. This is the same level of support farmers have 
received for the past 2 years. My amendment provides an additional $500 
million for oilseed assistance, which is the same as last year, and $1 
billion for aquaculture and other specialty crops. This is a total 
amount of $6.475 billion, and it represents approximately half of the 
Agriculture budget for both fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 
combined.
  The $7.5 billion reported in the bill by the Senate Agriculture 
Committee contains nearly $1 billion for programs that do not provide 
direct economic assistance to farmers. Why argue about that? Why argue 
about that in conference and spend some amount of time delaying the 
benefits that farmers need now?
  My suggestion is, the best way to help farmers today is to pass the 
Lugar substitute. It goes to the President, and he signs it. We can't 
write the President out of this process. He is involved in it. He has 
committed to veto the bill as reported by the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. Nine of us voted against it; 12 voted for it. But we are 
asking the Senate today to take another look realistically at the 
options we have.
  Let's not embrace what we would hope we could do. Let's embrace what

[[Page 15064]]

we know we can do. I don't care how many charts you put up here to show 
how bad the situation is in agriculture, you are not going to change 
the reality of the House action and the President's promised action.
  We are part of the process and we have a role to play--right enough--
and we can exercise our responsibilities when we rewrite the farm bill. 
If there is an indication that additional assistance is needed later 
on, we can take that from the budget resolution which provides for 
economic assistance for farmers in the 2002 crop year. We can do that. 
We don't have to solve every problem facing agriculture or conservation 
on this bill today. We can do what we can do today, and farmers 
understand that. They don't fall for a lot of political grandstanding. 
They don't spin all the charts that you can put up on the floor. That 
doesn't help them a bit. They know how bad it is. What they want is 
help now. To get help now, let's vote for the Lugar substitute.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section 
analysis.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Amendment to the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001--Section-
                               by-Section


                                Title I

     Section 101--Market Loss Assistance
       Supplemental income assistance to producers of cotton, 
     rice, wheat, and feedgrain producers eligible for a 
     Production Flexibility Contract payment at the 1999 AMTA 
     payment levels, totaling $5.466.
     Section 102--Oilseeds
       Provides $500 million for a supplemental market loss 
     assistance payment to oilseed producers totaling $500 
     million.
     Section 103--Peanuts
       Provides peanut producers of quota and additional peanuts 
     with supplemental assistance of $56 million.
     Section 104--Sugar
       Suspends the marketing assessment from the 1996 Farm Bill 
     for the 2001 crop of sugar beets and sugar cane at a cost of 
     $44 million.
     Section 105--Honey
       Makes non-recourse loans available to producers of honey 
     for the 2001 crop year at a cost of $27 million.
     Section 106--Wool and Mohair
       Provides supplemental payments to wool and mohair producers 
     totaling $17 million.
     Section 107--Cottonseed Assistance
       Provides assistance to producers and first handlers of 
     cottonseed totaling $100 million.
     Section 108--Specialty Crop Commodity Purchases
       Provides $80 million to purchase specialty crops that 
     experienced low prices in the 2000 and 2001 crop years. $8 
     million of the amount maybe used to cover transportation and 
     distribution costs.
     Section 109--Loan Deficiency Payments
       Allows producers who are not AMTA contract holders to 
     participate in the marketing assistance loan program for the 
     2001 crop year. Raises the Loan Deficiency payment limit from 
     $75,000 to $150,000.
     Section 110--Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Pecans
       Provides $20 million for the 2001 crop year.
     Section 111--Tobacco
       Provides $100 million for supplemental payments to tobacco 
     Farmers.


                                Title II

     Section 201--Equine Loans
       Allows horse breeders affected by the MRLS (Mare 
     Reproductive Loss Syndrome) to apply for U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture Emergency Loans. No CBO score.
     Section 202--Aquaculture Assistance
       Provides $25 million to assist commercial aquaculture 
     producers with feed assistance through the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation.


                               Title III

     Section 301--Obligation Period
       Provides the Commodity Credit Corporation the authority to 
     carry out And expend the amendments made by this act.
     Section 302--Commodity Credit Corporation
       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary 
     shall use The funds, facilities, and authorities of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this Act.
     Section 303--Regulations
       Secretary may promulgate such regulation as are necessary 
     to implement this Act and the Amendments made by this Act.
                                  ____


                           Cochran Amendment

 
                                                       Senate
 
FY 01 Spending (Budget)..................  $5.5 billion.
  Market Loss Payment....................  5.466 billion.
  Cottonseed Assistance..................  34 million.
                                          ------------------------------
    Subtotal FY01........................  5.5 billion.
                                          ==============================
FY02 Spending:
  Oilseed Payment........................  500 million.
  LDP eligibility for 01 crop year.......  40 million.
  Peanuts................................  56 million.
  Sugar (suspend assessment).............  44 million.
  Honey..................................  27 million.
  Wool and Mohair........................  17 million.
  Cottonseed.............................  66 million.
  Tobacco................................  100 million.
  Equine Loans...........................  0
  Commodity Purchases....................  80 million.
  Aquaculture............................  25 million.
  Peas, Lentils and Pecans...............  20 million.
  Double LDP Limit for 2001 Crop.........  0
                                          ------------------------------
    Subtotal FY02........................  975 million.
                                          ==============================
    Total................................  $6.475 billion.
 

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank Senator Cochran for his great 
statement.
  The question before the Senate is: do we want a reasonable package 
that will help farmers now that is within our budget, that we set out 
funds for, that can be delivered next week, or do we want a political 
issue that comes from a proposal which is full of provisions that have 
nothing to do with direct aid to farmers, that dramatically expands 
spending on programs that have nothing to do with an agriculture 
emergency, and a program that will almost--well, it will certainly be, 
since the President has now issued the veto message--be vetoed?
  Ultimately, people have to come down to reaching a conclusion in 
answering that question.
  What I would like to do today is make a few points. First, Senator 
Cochran is right. If we want to get aid to Texas and Mississippi and 
Iowa farmers next week, we need to pass the bill that passed the House 
or something very close to it. And passing the bill that passed the 
House, which can go directly to the President, which can be signed this 
week, is the right thing to do.
  The second issue has to do with non-emergency matters in an emergency 
appropriations bill. I could go down a long list, but let me mention a 
few.
  Changing the conservation reserve program: Maybe it needs to be 
changed, but do we have to do it in an emergency bill where we are 
trying to get assistance out the door by October 1? I think, clearly, 
we do not.
  Expanding a yet-to-be-implemented program about farmable wetlands: I 
don't understand, in an emergency bill, expanding a program that has 
never gone into effect. Maybe we will want to expand it after it goes 
into effect, and we know what it is. But, A, I can't imagine we would 
want to do it now, and, B, why would we want to clutter up an emergency 
farm bill that desperately needs to become law this week or next by 
getting in that debate here?
  Expanding subsidies for paper reduction in lunch programs: Maybe we 
need to increase subsidies for reducing the amount of paper that is 
expended in serving school lunch programs. Maybe that is a worthy 
objective. But why are we doing it on an emergency farm bill? I know of 
no critical shortage of paper in making plates and cups. So far as I am 
aware, we are capable of producing virtually an infinite quantity, not 
that that would be desirable public policy, but the point is, what does 
this have to do with the emergency that exists on many farms and 
ranches throughout America? The answer is nothing.
  Additional funding for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot 
Program: That may be a meritorious program. If I knew more about it, I 
might think it was one of the most important nutrition programs in 
America. On the other hand, maybe I would not think it is even 
meritorious if I knew more about it. The point is not whether it is 
meritorious or whether it is not; the point is, it has absolutely 
nothing to do with an emergency on farms and ranches all over America, 
and it has no place in an emergency farm bill.
  Making cities eligible for rural loan programs and credits: I guess 
other things being the same, I do not think cities of 50,000 ought to 
qualify for programs that are aimed at helping rural America. I have a 
lot of cities of 50,000. Just looking at it, it does not strike me that 
this is a great idea, but it may be a great idea. Maybe I just do not 
understand.
  The point is, what does this have to do with the emergency that is 
occurring in bank loans that our farmers

[[Page 15065]]

and ranchers all over America are having trouble paying? It has 
absolutely nothing to do with it, and it should not be in this bill.
  There is an increase in funding bioenergy loan subsidy programs in 
this bill. Maybe bioenergy should receive additional funding. Maybe it 
receives too much funding. The point is, what does that have to do with 
an emergency in rural America? What does it have to do with farmers and 
ranchers trying to make that payment on that loan at the local bank? It 
has nothing to do with it, and it should not be in this bill.
  Paying researchers at USDA beyond the civil service scale: I think 
highly of researchers. Some of my best friends are researchers. I used 
to be a researcher. Maybe this is God's work, changing the Civil 
Service Act to let researchers at the Department of Agriculture make 
more money. The point is, should we not look at that in the context of 
civil service? Shouldn't this be looked at by the committee that has 
jurisdiction, the Governmental Affairs Committee? Isn't this something 
on which we ought to have a fairly substantial debate? Are we going to 
do this at all the labs in America? Are we going to do it at the 
Department of Energy? Are we going to do it in oceanography? Is this 
the beginning of a major program?
  No one knows the answer to this. I do not even know if a hearing ever 
occurred on this subject.
  The point is, whether it is meritorious or not, what does it have to 
do with this farmer in plain view making that payment at the bank? It 
basically has to do with the pay of people who are fairly well paid. 
Maybe they are not paid enough.
  This has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis in rural America. 
This is something that ought to be dealt with next year.
  This brings me to the second point I want to talk about, and that is 
the $2 billion we are spending in this bill above the amount we said we 
were going to spend in the budget.
  I have sat in the Budget Committee and I have sat in this Chamber and 
have heard endless harangues about how we are about to spend the 
Medicare trust fund--how dare we spend the Medicare trust fund.
  My response has been, there is not a Medicare trust fund. We are 
running a surplus in Part A, we are running a deficit in Part B, and so 
there is no surplus, but that is not the point. The chairman of the 
Budget Committee has given us endless orations pleading that we not 
spend the Medicare trust fund, much less the Social Security trust 
fund. In fact, in committee and in the Senate Chamber, he and others 
have endlessly harangued about not spending these trust funds. Yet I 
hear no harangue today.
  We are in the process today of considering a bill that is $2 billion 
above the amount we included in the budget to spend in fiscal year 2001 
for the agriculture emergency--$2 billion above the amount we have in 
the budget.
  Having harangued endlessly about every penny we spend, every penny we 
give back to the taxpayer in tax cuts is imperiling the Medicare trust 
fund, where is Senator Conrad today? When we are in the process of 
adding $2 billion of spending above the budget, does anybody doubt that 
when the re-estimate comes back in August, when the new projections of 
the surplus come forward, given the economy has slowed down, does 
anybody doubt this $2 billion will come out of exactly the same 
Medicare trust fund about which we have heard endless harangues? Does 
anybody doubt that?
  No, they do not doubt it, but where are the harangues today? Those 
harangues were on another day focused on another subject. The harangues 
were against tax cuts, but when it is spending, there are no harangues.
  Lest anybody be confused, I do know something about the Budget 
Committee, having been privileged to serve on that committee in the 
House and the Senate. I understand the rules. Basically, the budget is 
whatever the chairman of the Budget Committee says the budget is.
  We have before us a bill that is $2 billion above the amount we wrote 
in the budget for fiscal year 2001, but the chairman of the Budget 
Committee says it is okay to take $2 billion from 2002 and spend it in 
2001 because in 2003, we can take the same $2 billion and spend it in 
2002. Actually, we cannot. If he reads his own budget, he will see that 
in 2003, unless we have a sufficient surplus so that all funds are 
going into the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund 
and reducing debt or being invested, we will not be able to make the 
shift from 2003 to 2002.
  One can say, as Senator Conrad did yesterday, that he makes the 
determination in advising the Parliamentarian that this does not have a 
budget point of order. So by definition, if he says it does not have a 
budget point of order, it does not have a budget point of order, but 
does anybody doubt it violates the budget?
  We wrote in the budget $5.5 billion, black and white, clear as it can 
be clear, that is how much we were going to spend. Now we are spending 
$7.5 billion, but it does not bust the budget? Why doesn't it bust the 
budget? Because the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, 
advises the Parliamentarian that it does not bust the budget. He is the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, so how can it bust the budget when he 
says it does not bust the budget?
  The pattern is pretty clear. Senator Conrad is deeply concerned--
deeply concerned--about spending these trust funds as long as the money 
is going for tax cuts, but the first time we bring to the Chamber an 
appropriation that clearly busts our budget, that spends $2 billion 
more than we wrote in the budget, that is all right because Senator 
Conrad said it is all right. He said it does not bust the budget 
because we are going to take the $2 billion from next year.
  If that creates a problem in writing the farm bill, I say to three 
Members who will be very much involved in writing the farm bill, 
Senator Conrad has the solution: It is no problem, just take the $2 
billion from 2003. There will be a problem, as I pointed out.
  Basically what we have before us is an effort to take $2 billion and 
to spend most of it on non-emergency programs that do not affect 
directly the well-being of farmers who are in crisis today in a clear 
action that busts the budget.
  I want to say this, not to go on so long as to be mean or hateful 
about it. I do not mind being lectured. I get lectured all the time. I 
guess I am about as guilty as any Member of the Senate in lecturing my 
colleagues. It comes from my background where I used to lecture 50 
minutes Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and an hour and 15 minutes on 
Tuesday and Thursday. My students paid attention because they wanted to 
pass.
  Here is the point: I don't see how any Member of the Senate who 
stands idly by and watches us spend $2 billion more than we pledged in 
the 2001 budget that we were going to spend on this bill, how that 
Member can remain silent or support that effort and have any 
credibility ever again when they talk about concern over deficits or 
spending trust funds.
  Ultimately, the debate is: Is it words or is it deeds? Are you really 
protecting the budget when we are on the floor spending $2 billion more 
than we said we were going to spend in the budget?
  It seems to me if you vote for this $7.5 billion appropriation--it is 
an entitlement program and an authorization, in addition to the $7.5 
billion--if Members vote for this $7.5 billion spending bill, which 
violates that budget by spending $2 billion more than we committed to, 
you cannot ever, it seems to me, have any credibility again in arguing 
you are concerned about the deficit or that you are concerned about 
spending the Medicare or Social Security trust fund.
  There is no question when the August re-estimates come in, this $2 
billion is going to come right out of the Medicare trust fund. We will 
have a vote. If Members want to live up to the rhetoric in saying we 
don't want to spend that trust fund, and we don't want to bust the 
budget, Members can vote for the Lugar amendment because it has three 
big advantages: First, it will become law this week, the President will

[[Page 15066]]

sign it; and, second, it doesn't bust the budget. Third, it doesn't 
take money out of the Medicare trust fund.
  I think every argument that can be made that should carry any weight 
in this debate is an argument for the Lugar amendment. I urge my 
colleagues not to get into an argument that will delay the assistance 
to our farmers and ranchers. We are going to debate a farm bill in the 
next fiscal year. I don't know whether we will pass one or not. We are 
going to debate one. Why start the debate by taking $2 billion we have 
to finance a new farm bill and spend it now on non-emergency items, by 
and large? Why not live within the budget today, get a bill to the 
President that he can sign, let him sign it this week, and let the 
money next week go out to help farmers and ranchers.
  In the next fiscal year, after October 1, we can debate a new farm 
bill. It is at that point that many of these issues need to be decided.
  If Members do not want to bust the budget and Members want this bill 
to become law, and become law soon, vote for the Lugar amendment. I 
intend to vote for the Lugar amendment. I intend to oppose the 
underlying bill. It violates the budget. It spends $2 billion more than 
we pledged to limit spending in the budget. I intend to resist it as 
hard as I can. I think it sends a terrible signal that here we are, 
despite all our high-handed speech about spending trust funds and 
living within the budget, and we come to the first popular program that 
we voted on and now we are busting the budget by 40 percent. Forty 
percent of the funds in the bill before the Senate represents an 
increase in spending over the budget that we adopted. That is a 
mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lugar substitute. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from 
Texas talk about how this does not comport with the budget resolution. 
The Senator from Texas is a member of the Budget Committee. The Senator 
from Texas must know full well the budget allows $5.5 billion for the 
Agriculture Committee to expend in fiscal year 2001. The Budget 
Committee also gave instructions to the Agriculture Committee that the 
Agriculture Committee could expend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 
2002.
  The reason that a point of order does not lie against this bill is 
not because of what the Budget Committee chairman said but because of 
the way the budget was written and adopted by the Senate when under the 
control, I might add, of my friends on the Republican side. I didn't 
hear the Senator from Texas say at that time when the budget was 
adopted we shouldn't be doing this--that we should only adopt $5.5 
billion for 2001 and nothing for 2002. I didn't hear the Senator from 
Texas at the time the budget was adopted get up and rail against that.
  So there it is. We have it in the budget that this committee is 
authorized to expend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002.
  I say to my friend from Texas, we didn't do that. We didn't expend 
$7.35 billion; we expended about $2 billion of that $7.35 billion that 
will be spent in fiscal year 2002.
  The Senator from Texas surely knows we are not spending any 2002 
money in 2001. We are spending 2001 money prior to September 30, but 
the other $2 billion, about, is spent after October 1, which is in 
fiscal year 2002 and is allowed under the budget agreement adopted by 
the House and the Senate.
  I didn't hear the Senator taking issue at that when the budget was 
adopted. We are only doing what is within our authority to do.
  Again, the Senator from Texas also went on at some length to read 
about some of the programs in the bill. I refer to last year's bill 
when we passed emergency assistance. There was a lot of extraneous 
stuff put in there because it was felt it was needed.
  Carbon cycle research was in last year's bill; tobacco research for 
medicinal purposes; emergency loans for seed producers; water systems 
for rural and native villages in Alaska; there is the Bioinformatics 
Institute for Model Plant Species in last year's ``emergency'' bill, 
along with crop insurance and everything else.
  I point out to my friend from Texas, there are no new programs in 
this bill, not one. In last year's bill there was a new program put in 
that probably, I suppose, we could have said should not have gone in 
the farm bill, but I thought it was reasonable and it was put in at 
that time on a soil and water conservation assistance program which was 
a brand-new program included in the emergency bill last year. I did not 
hear last year the Senator from Texas getting up and saying that the 
emergency bill should not include those. He is saying that this year.
  Again, we made no changes, and we made no policy changes. There is 
one technical correction included, and I had to smile when I heard the 
Senator talk about the paperwork reduction in the school nutrition 
program. Actually, that was requested by the House Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. They actually requested we do that to take 
care of a problem in paperwork. We said it sounds reasonable. We might 
as well do it. Why not take care of it?
  Again, there are no new programs, no new changes. All there is is one 
technical change in the CRP program, but in last year's emergency 
package there were a number of technical fixes and changes. There were 
new programs, as I pointed out. There were changes in eligibility. All 
that was done. We do not do that, basically, in this bill. There are no 
new conservation programs. All we are doing is funding the ones that 
are out of money.
  I do want to at least address myself very briefly to another issue. I 
heard some of my friends on the other side say: Yes, we do have a dire 
situation in agriculture; yes, farmers are hurting; yes, it has not 
gotten any better since last year. But because Mr. Daniels, the head of 
OMB, has said he would recommend a veto, we can't meet the needs of 
farmers out there.
  I ask my colleagues, who knows agriculture better, Mr. Daniels or the 
American Farm Bureau Federation? Who knows agriculture better, the 
National Corn Growers Association or Mr. Daniels? Who knows agriculture 
better, the National Farmers Union or Mr. Daniels? Who knows 
agriculture and their needs better, the National Wheat Growers 
Association or Mr. Daniels at OMB?
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who understand 
that we have some real unmet needs out there, we really have some 
farmers all across America who are hurting, as we have heard from all 
of their representatives. I say to them: Call on the President. Don't 
let Mr. Daniels speak for you. I say to my friends who understand 
agriculture, who understand the needs out there: Call up President Bush 
and say we need this package.
  I have heard Senators on the other side--not all of them, but I have 
heard some of them say we need this assistance; we need the kind of 
money we are talking about; but because there has been a threat of a 
veto, we cannot do it.
  I daresay that if Senators who hold that view were to call up the 
President and say: Mr. Daniels is wrong on this; we need this money; 
farmers desperately need it, I, quite frankly, believe the President 
would listen to the Senators here who represent agricultural States 
rather than Mr. Daniels.
  I don't know what Mr. Daniels' background is. I don't know if he is a 
farmer, if he comes from a farm or not. I don't know, but I don't think 
he understands what is happening there in agriculture.
  Last, there was a statement
made--I wrote it down--``political grandstanding.'' I resent the 
implication that what we are doing is political grandstanding. We took 
a lot of care and time to talk with Senators on both sides of the 
aisle. I talked with Representatives in the House of Representatives. 
We met with farm groups to try to fashion a bill that did two things: 
It met the requirements of the Budget Act and, second, met the needs 
farmers have out there.
  I really resent any implication that there is political 
grandstanding. We

[[Page 15067]]

may have a difference of opinion on what is needed out there. I can 
grant there may be some differences of opinion on that. But that is why 
we have debates. That is why we have votes. But in no way is this 
political grandstanding. This is what many of us, I think on both sides 
of the aisle, believe is desperately needed in rural America.
  Since it is desperately needed, I hope my friends on the other side 
of the aisle will contact the President and tell him this is one time 
he needs to not listen to the advice of Mr. Daniels but to listen to 
the advice of our American farmers, their Representatives here in 
Washington, and the Senators who represent those farm States.
  I yield the floor. I see my friend from Nebraska is waiting to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before you recognize the Senator from 
Nebraska, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent 
that I be recognized to move to table Senator Lugar's amendment at 3 
o'clock this afternoon and the 45 minutes prior to that vote, after our 
conferences, be equally divided between Senators Harkin and Lugar, and 
that no other amendments be in order prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise in support of this 
legislation, S. 1246, and in opposition to the amendment offered by my 
good friend, Senator Lugar. I know he is attempting to do what he 
thinks is best. That is what this honest debate should be about--what 
is best for American agriculture and how we can best meet those needs.
  I notice my good friend, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, has a view 
that is a little different from that of Senator Lugar in that he had 
prepared an amendment of about $6.5 billion but is supporting Senator 
Lugar in his effort at $5.5 billion. But it points out that there are 
honest differences of opinion, even on the other side.
  The reason I support S. 1246 is that it is a balanced bill and one 
that takes into account the diversity of agricultural interests all 
over this country. It recognizes that the major commodities are in 
their fourth year of collapsed prices, yet at the same time recognizes 
that economic assistance cannot and should not go just to program 
crops, it must reach further, to add additional farmers who are 
suffering and who do not happen to grow wheat, corn, or rice.
  On a parochial level, the bill before us holds several provisions 
that are important to Nebraskans. It is no exaggeration to say that 
agriculture is the backbone of Nebraska's economy, for one of every 
four Nebraskans depends on agriculture for employment. It has been an 
ongoing source of concern for me that when the rest of our economy was 
booming, production agriculture was on the decline.
  As do other Senators, I regret having to supplement our farm policy 
with billions of dollars of additional emergency assistance every year. 
So it is, in fact, high time to move on with the writing of a new farm 
bill for just that reason.
  But until then, we have to be here to help those who produce food, 
who feed our Nation. This bill does that. This bill provides for an 
additional AMTA, or Freedom to Farm payment, at the full $5.5 billion 
level, which is what producers in Nebraska want. It is what producers 
all across our country want and what they expect us to provide. The 
bill passed by the House does not do so, and any package that spends 
just $5.5 billion cannot do so. I believe that is unacceptable.
  This bill provides for assistance for oilseeds, which are not a 
program crop. It suspends the assessment on sugar, which is critical to 
the beleaguered sugar beet growers of western Nebraska and other parts 
of our country. And it beefs up and in some cases reinstates spending 
for vital conservation programs, all of which face long-term and 
growing backlogs and many of which would expire if not extended by this 
bill and were left for a farm bill later this year or next year.
  In some cases my good friend from Texas points out some programs that 
do not, I suspect, seem to be quite as much of an emergency. But I 
think the good Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, answered that and said 
that in every emergency bill you might question the urgency or 
emergency of certain aspects of it but we ought not to let that get in 
the way of passing a bill that deals with emergency needs.
  This bill also offers eligibility for LDP payments to producers who 
are not enrolled in the current farm program, a provision which I 
strongly support and which makes an enormous difference for the small 
number of producers who need this provision. In fact, Senator Grassley 
and I introduced legislation to this effect earlier this year and I am 
grateful to Chairman Harkin for including this provision. This morning 
I received a call from a constituent about this issue. So, for those 
who are eligible, there is no more important provision in this bill.
  Finally, I commend the chairman for including funding for value-added 
development grants. This program was first funded last year, and it has 
been very popular in Nebraska. In fact, I know we have several grant 
requests under preparation for this funding, including one for a 
producer-owned pork processing and marketing facility. This is exactly 
the kind of program that we all talk about and want to encourage.
  I am happy to support this package and know it will find wide support 
in Nebraska from farm groups and from farmers all over our State and 
our country.
  It is beyond me why some Senators and the administration are so 
staunchly opposed to this bill. In fact, it provides a payment for a 
single crop year but stretching over two fiscal years, and it is within 
the budget constraints.
  I can't find a way to explain to Nebraskans when prices are no better 
than last year's why the assistance provided by Congress should be cut. 
I can't find a way, and I don't intend to try to find a way to explain 
that. It just simply won't sell.
  The Director of OMB suggested in his letter that the spending should 
decrease because farm income is up. That certainly may be true for our 
cattle producers. But this assistance flows primarily to row crop 
producers and others who are not enjoying such good fortune. How can I 
explain to my constituent who called this morning saying that he 
qualified for LDPs on his farm last year but he doesn't merit any 
assistance this year?
  My point is that the tunnel vision approach that we must spend 
exactly and only $5.5 billion ignores an awful lot of needs in each and 
every one of our States.
  I am not willing to say that the needs of producers who grow corn in 
Nebraska are more important than those who grow chickpeas or to the 
dedicated hog producers who are working diligently to process and 
market their own pork that we can't find a way to afford the value-
added loan program that offers them their best chance to get off the 
ground. How can I say to them that they will have to wait for the farm 
bill and maybe there will be funding available after that?
  This bill before us attempts to balance the needs across commodities 
and across the country. I think it is a great effort. I hope we can 
convince the House of its merits.
  There was a statement that some of the payments will be direct but 
some will be indirect, as though there is some distinction there of any 
importance. The fact that we are able to get direct and indirect money 
into the pockets of farmers today is what this is about. That is what 
the emergency requires, and that is what this bill does.
  As a fiscal conservative, I want to economize but not at the expense 
of America's farmers. I support this bill because I think it, in fact, 
will do what we need to do for agriculture on an emergency basis and 
give us the opportunity in a more lengthy period of time to come to the 
conclusion about what the ongoing farm bill should be and do that not 
on an emergency basis but on a long-term basis and a multiyear basis.

[[Page 15068]]

  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska. I 
associate myself with all of Senator Nelson's remarks.
  I can't wait to write a new farm bill. I jumped on this Agriculture 
Committee when there was an opening because I have hated this ``freedom 
to fail'' bill. We have had a dramatic decline in farm prices and farm 
income.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for this emergency package. I rise to 
speak on the floor to strongly support what our committee has reported 
out to the Senate.
  Let me say at the very beginning that I don't like the AMTA payment 
mechanism. I am disappointed that we have to continue to do it this 
way.
  From the GAO to what farmers know in Minnesota and around the 
country, a lot of these AMTA payments have amounted to a subsidy and 
inverse relationship to need. The vast amount of the actual payments to 
farmers to keep them going goes to the really large operations and the 
mid-sized and smaller farmers do not get their fair share.
  I also believe that a lot of younger farmers who were hurt by the low 
proportion of payments that go to them are also hurt as younger 
farmers. We need more younger farmers.
  I believe all of this should be changed. The Senator from Iowa knows 
that. But I also think we have to get the payments out to people.
  Let me say to colleagues that I am not prepared to go back to 
Minnesota and say to people in farm country that we didn't have the 
money to provide the assistance to you.
  I think it is a shame that people are so dependent on the Government. 
People hate it. What they want is some power or some leverage to get a 
decent price in the marketplace. I believe in this farm bill that we 
are writing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We should do so. I 
also believe that there should be a strong effort in the conservation 
part of this legislation.
  I think there ought to be a section that deals with energy, and there 
ought to be a section dealing with competition. We ought to be talking 
about put putting more competition into the food industry.
  I am becoming conservative these days in the Senate because I want to 
put more free enterprise into the free enterprise system. I want to see 
us take antitrust seriously. I want to see us go after some of these 
conglomerates that are muscling their way to the dinner tables and 
forcing family farmers out--and, by the way, very much to the detriment 
of consumers.
  This emergency package has some very strong features. First of all, 
thank goodness, this is an emphasis on conservation and conserving our 
natural resources. From the CRP Program, to the Wetland Reserve 
Program, to Environmental Quality Incentive Programs, we are talking 
about programs that need the additional funding. We are talking about 
programs that are win-win-win: win for the farmers, win for Pheasants 
Forever, win for Ducks Unlimited, some of the best environmental 
organizations you could ever run across; a win for consumers; and a win 
for the environment.
  Our Catholic bishop wrote a statement about 15 years ago entitled 
``Strangers and Guests.'' He said we are all but strangers and guests 
in this land. They were looking at soil erosion and chemical runoff 
into the water.
  The focus on conservation in this emergency package is just a 
harbinger of the direction we are going to go because this next farm 
bill is going to focus on land stewardship, on preserving our natural 
resources, on conservation, and on a decent price for family farmers as 
opposed to these conglomerates.
  I believe what we have in this emergency package is extremely 
important. I thank my colleague from Iowa for an extension of the Dairy 
Price Support Program. It is important to dairy farmers in Minnesota 
and throughout the country. The program was due to expire this year. At 
least it is an effort to stabilize these mad fluctuations in price.
  If you have a lot of capital, it is fine if you go from $13.20 per 
hundredweight to $9 per hundredweight. But if you do not have the 
capital and the big bucks, you are going to go under.
  I think it is important to have that.
  I thank my colleagues. The growers in the Southern Minnesota Sugar 
Beet Cooperative are going to receive benefits under the 2000 crop 
assistance program through this legislation. These are sugar beet 
growers of southern Minnesota who suffered because of a freeze in the 
fields last fall. They tried to process the beets. They tried to do 
their best. They couldn't make the money off of it. Frankly, without 
the assistance in this package, they wouldn't have any future at all.
  Again, what is an emergency? From my point of view, if you can get 
some benefits to people who find themselves in dire economic 
circumstances through no fault of their own, and you can make sure that 
they can continue to survive today so that they can farm tomorrow, then 
you are doing what you should do.
  That is what this package is all about. I fully support it.
  As much as I like my colleague from Indiana and as much as I think he 
is one of the best Senators in the Senate, I cannot support his 
substitute amendment.
  I hope we will have strong support on the floor of the Senate for 
this package of emergency assistance that comes to the Senate from the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.
  By the way, we need to move on this matter. We need to get this 
assistance out to farmers. We don't need to delay and delay because 
then we are playing with people's lives in a very unfortunate way. We 
really are. This is the time for Senators to have amendments, as 
Senator Lugar has. This is a time for Senators to disagree. That is 
their honest viewpoint. But it is not a time to drag this on and on so 
that we can't get benefits out to people who without these benefits are 
not going to have any future at all. We cannot let that happen. We 
cannot do that to farmers in this country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________